P. S. NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRA
B. Prashanth Hegde – Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application under section 7 of ibc outlined. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. court analysis related to default and limitation. (Para 14 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 36 , 42 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 3. arguments challenging admissibility and validity of section 7. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 24) |
| 4. acknowledgement in balance sheets extends limitation. (Para 34 , 38 , 40 , 46 , 50) |
| 5. final decision; appeal dismissed. (Para 56 , 57) |
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal, under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 20161[IBC], impugns judgment and order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi2[NCLAT], dated 17.12.2021, passed in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 68 of 2019 and I.A. No. 1078 of 2021.
2. A brief narration of facts in a chronological order would be apposite. The first respondent (State Bank of India3[SBI]), claiming itself to be the Financial Creditor4[FC] of M/s. Metal Closure Pvt. Ltd. (i.e., the Corporate Debtor5[CD]), filed an application under Section 7 6[ Section 7 . Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process by financial creditor. – (1) A financial creditor either by itself or
Indus Biotech Private Limited V. Kotak India Venture (Offshore) Fund & Ors.
Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr V. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 4 SCC 17 [Para 17]
M/s. Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank & Anr.
Laxmi Pat Surana v. Union Bank of India & Anr
In Re : Pandam Tea Company Ltd.
Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd.
Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. Bishal Jaiswal & Anr.
M. Suresh Kumar Reddy v. Canara Bank and Others
B. K. Educational Services (P) Ltd. v. Parag Gupta & Associates
Sesh Nath Singh and Anr. v. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Anr.
Dena Bank (Now Bank of Baroda) v. C. Shivakumar Raddy and another
E.S. Krishnamurthy & Ors v. Bharath Hi- Tech Builders (P) Ltd.
Acknowledgment of debt through balance sheets and restructuring efforts extends limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act; thus, a Section 7 application under IBC remains valid even if initia....
(1) In computing period of limitation for initiation of CIRP proceedings, time spent in pursuing remedy under SARFAESI Act or any other recovery law cannot be excluded.(2) IBC is essentially a statu....
(1) IBC is not just another statute for recovery of debts – Nor is it a statute which merely prescribes modalities of liquidation of a Corporate body, unable to pay its debts – It is essentially a st....
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....
Acknowledgment of debt in balance sheets and OTS proposals can extend the limitation period for initiating CIRP under the IBC.
(1) Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) – Period of limitation for making application under Section 7 or 9 of IBC is three years from the date of accrual of right to sue, tha....
(1) Power of attorney holder’ is not competent to file application under Section 7 of IBC on behalf of financial creditor – However, general authorisation given to an officer of financial creditor by....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the limitation period for filing an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the applicab....
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.