Skip to main content

Every subsequent default gives fresh right and counting of limitation period

Cause Title : Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited vs Revital Realty Private Limited, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 994 of 2022, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal

Date of Judgment/Order : 24.05.2023

Corum : Justice Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson & Naresh Salecha, Member (Technical)

Citied: 

Koncentric Investments Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Standard Chartered Bank & Anr. (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 911 of 2021)

Background

The Appellant sanctioned one loan for Rs. 85 Crores on 05.02.2016 and entered into the loan agreement on 22.02.2016 which was fully disbursed on 09.05.2016 and the Respondent/Corporate Debtor defaulted payment of the instalment for the month of July 2018 which was due and payable on 19.08.2018 resulting into default in terms of the Loan Agreement. The Appellant issued a loan recall notice dated 25.03.2022 and since the loan was not repaid within the timeline provided, an application under Section 7 was filed. The said application was dismissed by NCLT as barred by limitation. The NCLT had held that  28.03.2022 cannot be taken as date of default since cause of action has happened much prior to issuance of Loan Recall Notice.

The Applicant argued that the payment received from the Corporate Debtor till 24.01.2019 were adjusted towards amount due and payable till 19.07.2018 and technically there was nothing due and payable before 19.07.2018, hence there could not have been any default on 09.05.2016 as wrongly held by the NCLT.

The Respondent supporting the decision of the NCLT argued that the Applicant had mischievously and arbitrarily adjusted their payment against the earlier amount outstanding, without taking consent of the Respondent just to drag them into CIRP.

Judgment

NCLAT held that as per the definitions of Debt, Default & Financial Creditor in the Insolvency Code, the Financial Creditor may file an application for initiating CIRP when the default has occurred. It is not necessary for the Appellant to file an application under Section 7 of the Code, on the happening of first default of amount due and it is discretion of the Financial Creditor to decide filing an Application under Section 7 as per the facts and his legal rights. In fact, the intention of the Code is to keep the corporate entity as solvent and going concern entity rather than encouraging or contemplating for initiation of the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor on the drop of the hat i.e. on the first event of default itself. Normally, as commercially prudent mechanism, the financial creditor always tries to resolve the issue with the Corporate Debtor so that his financial interest is not adversely affected and to ensure the same, he sometimes give leeway to the Corporate Debtor to overcome the temporary financial stress of the Corporate Debtor to avoid defaults. It is only this background, the Financial Creditor do not initiate on many occasions the proceeding for CIRP against the Corporate Debtor on the first date of default itself although it is his legal right as provided in the Code and the law.

The action of not filing application by the Appellant under Section 7 of the Code, in event of default of interest amount cannot be interpreted taking away the rights of the Appellant to sue when the first instalment or when the entire loan became due for payment and not paid 

Thus, the Appellant could have taken legal recourse under the Code either on 19.08.2018 or on subsequent defaults or when entire loan became due, payable and defaulted i.e. on 28.03.2022. 

Referring to judgment in Koncentric Investments (supra) and disagreeing with the order of the NCLT, the NCLAT observed that  it is an established the fact the Financial Creditor gets rights for filing an Application under Section 7 of the Code when the right to apply against default accrues and for every default there is a fresh period of limitation.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more