NCLAT held that (i) on the issue whether the date of default can be changed by the Bank?, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kymal (2021) ibclaw.in 08 SC that the date of default cannot be changed. It has also been held in the case of Laxmi Pat Surana (2021) ibclaw.in 53 SC, Babulal Vardharji Gurjar [2020] ibclaw.in 16 SC, B.K Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. [2018] ibclaw.in 32 SC and Jignesh Shah [2019] ibclaw.in 19 SC that the period of limitation would be attracted from the date when the default occurs and not from the date of declaration of NPA. Therefore, the date of NPA cannot be taken to be the date of default for the purpose of limitation.
(ii) It has now been well settled by three judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Shanti Conductors Pvt. Ltd. (2019) ibclaw.in 201 SC, that Section 19 would come into play if the payment is acknowledged in the handwriting of, or in a writing signed by the person making the payment.
(iii) As regards the OTS, it has come on record that the OTS has occurred much after the expiry of period of limitation, therefore, it cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of Section 18 to extend the period of limitation.