Ack - Definition of Acknowledgment

The documents being balance sheets and settlement offers relating to acknowledgement claiming benefit of Section 18 of Limitation Act, 1963 could be accepted even at the appellate stage – Axis Bank Ltd. Vs. Naren Sheth & Anr. – Supreme Court

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
(i) Section 14 will have no application inasmuch as the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act before the DRT cannot be said to be before a Court or Tribunal having no jurisdiction.
(ii) A Secured Creditor would definitely have a right to invoke the power under the SARFAESI Act and the said proceedings cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. Therefore, no benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act would be admissible to the Secured Creditor.
(iii) The documents relating to acknowledgement claiming benefit of Section 18 could be accepted even at the appellate stage.
(iv) A settlement offer akin to an OTS proposal would be an acknowledgment of debt for the purpose of Section 18 of Limitation Act.
(v) A balance sheet acknowledging debt is also a document relevant for calculating the limitation.

The documents being balance sheets and settlement offers relating to acknowledgement claiming benefit of Section 18 of Limitation Act, 1963 could be accepted even at the appellate stage – Axis Bank Ltd. Vs. Naren Sheth & Anr. – Supreme Court Read Post »

NCLAT upholds admission of IBC Sec. 10 application and issue of applicability of moratorium where aircrafts leases were terminated prior to admission of Section 10 application need to be considered by NCLT – SMBC Aviation Capital Ltd. Vs. Interim RP of Go Airlines (India) Ltd., Abhilash Lal – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT upheld the decision of NCLT in Go Airlines (India) Ltd. and held that (i) the mere fact that no notice was issued to the creditors or any opportunity was given to the objectors before proceeding to hear, the Corporate Applicant, cannot be held to vitiate any procedure or violating the principles of natural justice, more so when objectors were heard by the Adjudicating Authority. (ii) In appropriate case where there is an Application under Section 65 of the Code before the Adjudicating Authority, the Adjudicating Authority after initiation of proceedings under Section 10 and before passing any order on Section 10 Application notices that initiation is fraudulent and malicious, the Adjudicating Authority is well within its jurisdiction to consider the Application and if it is held and found that initiation is fraudulent and malicious, the Adjudicating Authority is fully entitled to reject the said Application.
Further, NCLAT directed that (i) The Appellant(s) as well as IRP are at liberty to make appropriate Application before the Adjudicating Authority for declaration with regard to applicability of the moratorium on the aircrafts with regard to which Leases in favour of the Corporate Applicant were terminated prior to admission of Section 10 Application, which Application need to be considered and decided by the Adjudicating Authority in accordance with law.
(ii) The Appellant(s) and the IRP are also at liberty to make an appropriate Application under Section 60, sub-section (5) with regard to claim of possession and other respective claims of both the parties relating to the aircrafts in question, which need to be decided by the Adjudicating Authority in accordance with law.

NCLAT upholds admission of IBC Sec. 10 application and issue of applicability of moratorium where aircrafts leases were terminated prior to admission of Section 10 application need to be considered by NCLT – SMBC Aviation Capital Ltd. Vs. Interim RP of Go Airlines (India) Ltd., Abhilash Lal – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

The delay in filing an Appeal under Section 42 of IBC is clearly condonable while exercising the power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act – Canara Bank Vs. Commercial Tax Department Circle 09, Indore, Madhya Pradesh & Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

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

The delay in filing an Appeal under Section 42 of IBC is clearly condonable while exercising the power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act – Canara Bank Vs. Commercial Tax Department Circle 09, Indore, Madhya Pradesh & Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

An acknowledgement u/s 18 of Limitation Act, 1963 made by the Principal Borrower is equally binding on the Corporate Guarantor – Sri Bijay Kumar Agarwal Vs. State Bank of India – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that it is well settled that any request by Borrower for one-time settlement tantamount to acknowledgement under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. Further, it concluded that acknowledgement made by the Principal Borrower within three years’ period from the date of account being declared NPA, there shall be fresh period of limitation available to the Financial Creditor and the Application under Section 7 having been filed within three years from the date of acknowledgement, cannot be held to be barred by time.

It also held that the limitation for proceedings under Section 7 are independent and separate from proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and it is now well settled that Section 7 Application has to be filed within a period of limitation as prescribed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act.

An acknowledgement u/s 18 of Limitation Act, 1963 made by the Principal Borrower is equally binding on the Corporate Guarantor – Sri Bijay Kumar Agarwal Vs. State Bank of India – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top