The Tribunal adjudicated that the date of default amendment is permissible under IBC and does not violate limitation principles when appropriately disclosed in the initial petition.

ORDER

[PER: CORAM]

1. This is an application filed by the Applicant- Matoshri Laxmi Sugar Co-Generation Industries Limited (i.e. “the Corporate Debtor”) against the Respondent-Union Bank of India (i.e. the “Financial Creditor”) under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 seeking the following reliefs:

A. Recall and set aside the Order dated 01.05.2025 passed in CP(IB) No. 195/MB/2025 to the extent it permits the Applicant/Financial Creditor to amend Form 1 and revise the originally stated date of default;

B. Direct that the Company Petition be adjudicated strictly on the basis of pleadings and documents as originally filed without any amendment to the date of default;

C. Pass such other and further orders as this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Vide Order dated 01.05.2025, this Bench had stated as follows:

1. Ld. Counsel Mr. H.P. Kar for the Applicant is present through VC, Ld. Counsel Mr. Ninad Deshpande for the Respondent is also present through VC.

2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent states that reply has since been filed with the DMS. On page no. 10 of the reply, a receipt is attached evidencing that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- levied as cost was paid on 17.04.2025.

3. As the cost has been paid, though with delay, for which the condonation has been sought. The delay is condoned and the reply is taken on record.

4. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent undertakes to file the physical copy of the reply within a period of 2 days from the date of this order.

5. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant has filed the rejoinder through an affidavit, which is dated 24.04.2025 and has tendered the physical copy of the same, across the bar today. The same is taken on record.

6. It is seen from the record that page no. 6 of the application reveals that the date of default is mentioned as 30.06.2017, which is the date of NPA. From page no. 15 of the Form-1, it is seen that Hon’ble DRT Pune, has passed a decree on 24.03.2023 in the matter.

7. At this stage, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant wishes that an opportunity be given to him to revise the Form-1, for which he seeks a period of 2 weeks. Allowed.

8. Revised Form-1 may be filed within a period of 2 weeks after serving the same to the opposite side and for which affidavit of service needs to be filed by the Applicant.

9. Respondent is given opportunity to file the reply to the amended Form 1 within a period of 10 days.

10. Relist this matter for hearing on 06.06.2025.

3. Submissions and Pleadings of the Applicant

i. The original petition under Section 7 of the IBC filed by the Financial Creditor stating the date of default as 30.06.2017, being the date on which the Corporate Debtor's loan account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset. It is an admitted position that the application was filed well beyond the three-year limitation period prescribed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 . No Recovery Certificate was pleaded or annexed at the time of filing, nor was any fresh cause of action claimed. Thus, the petition is ex facie time-barred.

ii. In these circumstances, the permission granted by this Hon'ble Tribunal on 01.05.2025 to revise Form 1 and alter the date of default after the limitation issue had been raised and contested is not a procedural correction but a substantive alteration which changes the very basis and maintainability of the petition.

iii. The Hon'ble NCLAT, Chennai Bench, in Vasavai Power Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Canara Bank Ltd. , Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No. 228/2025, has authoritatively held that: An amendment which withdraws a p