Question of applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act to IBC proceedings is remained open
In Bishal Jaiswal Vs. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. & Anr. (2020) ibclaw.in 414 NCLAT, referring Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment of Babulal Vardharji Gurjar Vs. Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.  ibclaw.in 16 SC, it has been held that Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would have no application to proceedings under IBC. However, in Author’s view, the decision on applicability of Sec. 18 in the Supreme Court’s judgment was based on facts of the case and Supreme Court did not deny about applicability of the section 18. The Court held that it remains trite that the question of limitation is essentially a mixed question of law and facts and when a party seeks application of any particular provision for extension or enlargement of the period of limitation, the relevant facts are required to be pleaded and requisite evidence is required to be adduced. Further, it is held that even if Section 18 of the Limitation Act and principles thereof were applicable, the same would not apply to the application under consideration in the present case, looking to the very averment regarding default therein and for want of any other averment in regard to acknowledgement. Relevant paragraphs reproduced here:
I. Outcome of Bishal Jaiswal (2020) ibclaw.in 414 NCLAT
A. Submission of Learned counsel for Appellant:
“…. . It is submitted that in “Babulal Vardharji Gurjar Vs. Veer Gurjar Aluminum Industries Ltd. & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 6347 of 2019”, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to applications under I&B Code. Therefore, question of Balance Sheet amounting to acknowledgment of liability is no longer relevant. It is accordingly submitted that the reference is incompetent and the appeal is required to be remitted back to the three Member Bench with direction to decide the same on merit by applying the law laid down in ‘V. Padmakumar’.”(paragraph 6).
B. Decision of the NCLAT:
“13. In “BabulalVardharji Gurjar Vs. Veer Gurjar Aluminum Industries Ltd. & ”, Civil Appeal No. 6347 of 2019, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would have no application to proceedings under I&B Code. Therefore, the issue raised as regards acknowledgement of liability by reflection in the Balance Sheet/ Annual Return would be irrelevant.” (para. 13)
II. Outcome of Babulal Vardharji Gurjar  ibclaw.in 16 SC
“16. In distillation of what has been noticed hereinabove, it is apparent that while not disputing the basics on the applicability of law of limitation to the application in question, the main plank of submissions of the learned counsel for respondents has been that the applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, providing for extension of the period of limitation upon making of acknowledgment by the party against whom a right is claimed, is not taken away and, for such acknowledgments (of liability) having been consistently and continuously made in the balance sheets and annual reports by the corporate debtor as also in its offer for OTS, the fresh period of limitation would be available from the date of every such acknowledgment. Hence, with heavy reliance on the principles relating to “acknowledgment” under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, the learned counsel for the respondents would assert that the application in question is not barred by limitation. On the other hand, the gravamen of submissions on behalf of the appellant has been that looking to the scheme of the Code and the decisions of this Court, the application in question is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act; that three years’ time period prescribed therein commences from the date of default; and that acknowledgment of debt in the balance sheet or annual report does not give any fresh period of limitation because default occurs only once and does not furnish a continuing right to apply.”
“31. While the aforesaid principles remain crystal clear with the consistent decisions of this Court, the only area of dispute, around which the contentions of learned counsel for the parties have revolved in the present case, is about applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act and effect of the observations occurring in paragraph 21 of the decision in Jignesh Shah (supra).”
“32. We have noticed all the relevant and material observations and enunciations in the case of Jignesh Shah Prima facie, it appears that illustrative reference to Section 18 of the Limitation Act, in paragraph 21 of the decision in Jignesh Shah, had only been in relation to the suit or other proceedings, wherever it could apply and where the period of limitation could get extended because of acknowledgment of liability. Noticeably, in contradistinction to the proceeding of a suit, this Court observed that a suit for recovery, which is a separate and independent proceeding distinct from the remedy of winding up would, in no manner, impact the limitation within which the winding up proceeding is to be filed1. It is difficult to read the observations in the aforesaid paragraph 21 of Jignesh Shah to mean that the ratio of B.K. Educational Services has, in any manner, been altered by this Court. As noticed, in B.K. Educational Services, it has clearly been held that the limitation period for application under Section 7 of the Code is three years as provided by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, which commences from the date of default and is extendable only by application of Section 5 of Limitation Act, if any case for condonation of delay is made out. The findings in paragraph 12 in Jignesh Shah makes it clear that the Court indeed applied the principles so stated in B.K. Educational Services, and held that the winding up petition filed beyond three years from the date of default was barred by time.”
“32.1. Even in the later decisions, this Court has consistently applied the declaration of law in B.K. Educational Services (supra). As noticed, in the case of Vashdeo R. Bhojwani (supra), this Court rejected the contention suggesting continuing cause of action for the purpose of application under Section 7 of the Code while holding that the limitation started ticking from the date of issuance of recovery certificate dated 24.12.2001. Again, in the case of Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave (supra), where the date of default was stated in the application under Section 7 of the Code to be the date of NPA i.e., 21.07.2011, this Court held that the limitation began to run from the date of NPA and hence, the application filed under Section 7 of the Code on 03.10.2017 was barred by limitation.”
“32.2. In view of the above, we are not inclined to accept the arguments built up by the respondents with reference to one part of observations occurring in paragraph 21 of the decision in Jignesh Shah (supra).”
“33. Apart from the above and even if it be assumed that the principles relating to acknowledgement as per Section 18 of the Limitation Act are applicable for extension of time for the purpose of the application under Section 7 of the Code, in our view, neither the said provision and principles come in operation in the present case nor they enure to the benefit of respondent No. 2 for the fundamental reason that in the application made before NCLT, the respondent No. 2 specifically stated the date of default as ‘8.7.2011 being the date of NPA’. It remains indisputable that neither any other date of default has been stated in the application nor any suggestion about any acknowledgement has been made. As noticed, even in Part-V of the application, the respondent No. 2 was required to state the particulars of financial debt with documents and evidence on record. In the variety of descriptions which could have been given by the applicant in the said Part-V of the application and even in residuary Point No. 8 therein, nothing was at all stated at any place about the so called acknowledgment or any other date of default.” (Emphasis provided)
“33.1. Therefore, on the admitted fact situation of the present case, where only the date of default as ‘08.07.2011’ has been stated for the purpose of maintaining the application under Section 7 of the Code, and not even a foundation is laid in the application for suggesting any acknowledgement or any other date of default, in our view, the submissions sought to be developed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 at the later stage cannot be permitted. It remains trite that the question of limitation is essentially a mixed question of law and facts and when a party seeks application of any particular provision for extension or enlargement of the period of limitation, the relevant facts are required to be pleaded and requisite evidence is required to be adduced. Indisputably, in the present case, the respondent No. 2 never came out with any pleading other than stating the date of default as ‘08.07.2011’ in the application. That being the position, no case for extension of period of limitation is available to be examined. In other words, even if Section 18 of the Limitation Act and principles thereof were applicable, the same would not apply to the application under consideration in the present case, looking to the very averment regarding default therein and for want of any other averment in regard to acknowledgement. In this view of the matter, reliance on the decision in Mahaveer Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. does not advance the cause of the respondent No. 2.” (Emphasis provided)
The Opinions expressed in this article are that of the author(s).The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of http://www.ibclaw.in.
The opinions expressed herein are those of the contributors (which shall, for these purposes, include guests) in their personal capacity and do not, in any way or manner, reflect the views of the organizations that the contributors are presently associated with, or that have previously employed or retained the contributors. Postings on this blog are for informational purposes only. Nothing herein shall be deemed or construed to constitute legal or investment advice. Discussions on, or arising out of this, blog between contributors and other persons shall not create any attorney-client relationship.