25/09/2020

3 members bench referred V. Padmakumar, 5 members bench’s judgment, on Company’s Balance Sheet amounts to an acknowledgement of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to Hon’ble Acting Chairperson for reconsideration – Bishal Jaiswal Vs. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd – NCLAT New Delhi

Three Members Bench of the Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) heard the arguments in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 385 of 2020. During the course of arguments, a Judgment rendered by Five Hon’ble Members of this Appellate Tribunal in the Case of V. Padma Kumar Vs. Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund (SASF) & Anr. [2020] ibclaw.in 255 NCLAT has been cited before the Bench. After hearing the arguments of Learned Counsel for the parties. The bench with the great respect to the Hon’ble Members of the Judgment thought it proper to refer the V. Padmakumar’s case for reconsideration. The issue is of great importance which is as “Hon’ble Supreme Court and various Hon’ble High Courts have consistently held that an entry made in the Company’s Balance Sheet amounts to an acknowledgement of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in view of the settled law, V. Padmakumar’s Case requires reconsideration.” The Registrar is directed to place the attached reference alongwith V. Padmakumar’s Case (Supra) before the Hon’ble Acting Chairperson for constituting appropriate Bench. Reasons for reconsideration of V. Padmakumar’s Judgment:

3 members bench referred V. Padmakumar, 5 members bench’s judgment, on Company’s Balance Sheet amounts to an acknowledgement of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to Hon’ble Acting Chairperson for reconsideration – Bishal Jaiswal Vs. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

The Demand Notice in Form 3 requires the date of default to be explicitly mentioned in the notice so that on the basis of documents the debt amount and the date of default could be ascertained – Kodeboyina Srinivas Krishna Vs. PVM Innvensys Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that it is clear from a reading of Section 8(1) that the demand notice or copy of invoice has to be sent by the operational creditor in the prescribed format for unpaid operational debt on occurrence of default in repayment or copy of an invoice demanding payment of the amount involved in the default. The Explanation with Section 8 explains Demand Notice to mean a notice demanding payment of the operational debt in respect of which the default has occurred. Thus is it clear that the demand notice and later the application under Section 9 of IBC should pertain to the operational debt that is in default alongwith the date of default and documents in proof of the purchase and supply of the items for which the operational debt is said to exist. This is necessary to enable the Ld. Adjudicating Authority establish and adjudicate on the existence of operational debt which is in default and the date of default. The Demand Notice in Form 3 also requires the date of default to be explicitly mentioned in the notice so that on the basis of documents the debt amount and the date of default could be ascertained.

The Demand Notice in Form 3 requires the date of default to be explicitly mentioned in the notice so that on the basis of documents the debt amount and the date of default could be ascertained – Kodeboyina Srinivas Krishna Vs. PVM Innvensys Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

The Tribunal is to see at this stage is whether there is a plausible contention which requires further investigation and that the “dispute” is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence – M/s. V.K.Building Services Private Limited Vs. M/s Marymatha Infrastructure Private Limited – NCLT Kochi Bench

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here

The Tribunal is to see at this stage is whether there is a plausible contention which requires further investigation and that the “dispute” is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence – M/s. V.K.Building Services Private Limited Vs. M/s Marymatha Infrastructure Private Limited – NCLT Kochi Bench Read Post »

Scroll to Top