An appeal being the continuation of original proceedings, the provision of Section 7(5)(b) of the IBC, would be attracted and before closing CIRP proceedings at appeal stage, an opportunity to Financial Creditors to explain if there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing CIRP application before the NCLT – Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Kew Precision Parts Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – Supreme Court

This judgment clarifies:
Pre-existing disputes in case of application u/s 7-Financial Creditor;
SARFEASI or other recovery law does not affect the right of a Financial Creditor to initiate CIRP;
Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act;
Distinction between Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and Section 25 of the Contract Act;
Compliance with the requisites of the Proviso to Section 7(5) of the IBC;
Opportunity to Financial Creditor at appeal stage before dismissing CIRP;
Condonation of delay in filing of CIRP application u/s 7, 9 and 10 and appeals;
Period of Limitation;
Entries in books of accounts and/or balance sheets of a Corporate Debtor – Acknowledgement under Section 18 of Limitation Act;
Scheme of the IBC and Interpretation of IBC

An appeal being the continuation of original proceedings, the provision of Section 7(5)(b) of the IBC, would be attracted and before closing CIRP proceedings at appeal stage, an opportunity to Financial Creditors to explain if there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing CIRP application before the NCLT – Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Kew Precision Parts Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – Supreme Court Read Post »