SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the National Company Law Apellate Tribunal)
HEMANT GUPTA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.
SVG Fashions Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known as SVG Fashions Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Ritu Murli Manohar Goyal & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2020
Decided On : 29-03-2022
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 9 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 18 – Dishonour of cheques – Money claim – Limitation – When time begins to run, it can only be extended in the manner provided in Limitation Act – Law as it has developed on applicability of Section 18 of Limitation Act and circumstances in which it would apply, have also not been examined by NCLAT – Impugned order of NCLAT set aside and matter remanded back to NCLAT for fresh consideration. (Paras 9 and 10)
Facts of the case:
Aggrieved by the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, reversing the order of ‘Admission’ passed by the National Company Law Tribunal and holding that their application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was barred by limitation, the operational creditor has come up with the present appeal.
Findings of Court:
Order of NCLAT is liable to be set aside and the matter liable to be remanded back for a fresh consideration.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
V. Ramasubramanian, J.
Aggrieved by the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (for short "NCLAT"), reversing the order of 'Admission' passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (for short "NCLT") and holding that their application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short "the Code") was barred by limitation, the operational creditor has come up with the present appeal.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-operational creditor; the learned counsel for the first respondent-shareholder and Director of the corporate-debtor and the learned counsel for the second respondent-Interim Resolution Professional.
3. The appellant herein filed an application under Section 9 of the Code on 20.04.2018 against M/S Arpita Filaments Private Limited, contending inter alia: that the corporate-debtor started having business dealings with them from 2013; that they sold and delivered various fabrics to the corporate-debtor; that the corporate-debtor was irregular in making payments as per the bills; and that the demand notice issued by them under Section 8 of the Code read with Rule 5 did not invoke any response.
4. Before NCLT, the corporate-debtor raised four major objections, one of which was that the claim was barred by limitation. But NCLT found on the basis of a letter dated 28.09.2015 produced by the operational creditor that six cheques had been issued in favour of the operational creditor. These cheques returned dishonoured when presented for payment. The stand taken by the corporate-debtor was that those six cheques were lost by the corporate-debtor in March 2017 and that they had already issued "stop payment instructions" to the bank on 4.03.2017. The corporate-debtor also claimed that the letter dated 28.09.2015 relied upon by the operational creditor was issued by Shree Adeshwar Textiles and that therefore, the operational creditor cannot rely upon the same to save limitation.
5. However, the NCLT, by an order dated 26.09.2019 overruled the objections and held that there was an acknowledgment of liability on the part of the corporate-debtor and that therefore, the application was within the period of limitation. Consequently, the NCLT ordered the admission of the application under Section 9 of the Code and also declared moratorium in terms of Section 14.
6. On an appeal filed by the appellant, the NCLAT held that the debt arose during the period from 11.08.2013 to 02.09.2013 and that the six cheques purportedly issued towards part payment of the liability having been issued on 5.12.2017, will not save limitation. The NCLAT further held that even if the date of default is taken to be 7.10.2013 as pleaded by the operational creditor, the acknowledgment of liability in terms of Section 18 of the Limitation Act ought to have happened on or before 07.10.2016. But the cheques were dated December 2017 and hence NCLAT reversed the decision of NCLT and dismissed the application of the operational creditor.
7. But we find from the order of NCLAT that there was no discussion at all about the letter dated 28.09.2015. According to the operational creditor, the six cheques in question were handed over along with the letter dated 28.09.2015. The cheque numbers and the bank on which the cheques were drawn, given in the letter dated 28.09.2015 tallied with the particulars of those six cheques allegedly lost by the corporate debtor in March 2017. Though the first respondent herein clamed in his affidavit in reply that the corporate-debtor had issued stop payment instructions, he conceded that the acknowledgment issued by the banker contained the date 01.01.2018.The following extract from the affidavit in reply/objections of the Director of the corporate-debtor makes an interesting reading:
Jignesh Shah and Another vs. Union of India and Another
Babu Lal Vardharji Gurjar vs. Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Private Limited and Another
K. Educational Services Private Limited vs. Parag Gupta and Associates
Laxmi Pat Surana vs. Union Bank of India And Another
Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vs. Bishal Jaiswal and Another
(1) Acknowledgement of liability that is made in a balance sheet can amount to an acknowledgement of debt. Though filing of a balance sheet is by compulsion of law, acknowledgement of a debt is not n....
The provisions of Section 18 of the Limitation Act are applicable to proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and an acknowledgement in a balance sheet without a qualification can extend....
The court clarified that the issue of limitation regarding the application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code remains open for consideration by the NCLT, allowing the respondent to produce addi....
The court emphasized that claims under the Insolvency Code must consider all permissible invoices within the limitation period.
The importance of providing an adequate opportunity of response to the corporate debtor and the admissibility of additional documents in the appellate stage.
(1) Provisions of Limitation Act are applicable to proceedings under IBC as far as may – Proceedings in good faith in a forum which lacks jurisdiction or is unable to entertain for like nature may sa....
Appeal – Limitation stops running on e-filing of appeal before NCLAT and not on presentation of physical copy – Date on which limitation begins to run is intrinsically linked to date of pronouncement....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the allowance of amendment of the application under Section 7 to incorporate the case based on acknowledgement as contained in the balance sheets o....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.