Limitation Act-IBC [Main]

Provisions of Section 14 of the limitation Act will not be attracted for the purposes of condoning the delay in filing appeal under Section 61 of IBC – Hero Exports Vs. Mr. K. Vasudevan RP, Tiffins Barytes Asbestos & Paints Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT Chennai

When under the statute, the power of review or recall is not vested with an authority created under law, the same would not be maintainable and in these eventualities the recall or a review petition cannot be treated as to be a proceeding in continuation to the principal proceeding, which was held before the NCLT, for grant of approval to the Resolution Plan. In that eventuality, where the appellant has opted to put a challenge only to the order of rejection of recall application, it would amount to that he has acceded to the order of approval of the resolution plan, and consequentially the implications of Order II Rule 2, of CPC would follow which is otherwise principally made applicable in the proceedings which are held before the NCLT or under the I & B Code.

Provisions of Section 14 of the limitation Act will not be attracted for the purposes of condoning the delay in filing appeal under Section 61 of IBC – Hero Exports Vs. Mr. K. Vasudevan RP, Tiffins Barytes Asbestos & Paints Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

The entry made in the Balance Sheet coupled with the note of the Auditor clearly amounts to acknowledgement of the liability – Vidyasagar Prasad Vs. UCO Bank and Anr. – Supreme Court

Hon’ble Supreme Court referring Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. Bishal Jaiswal (2021) ibclaw.in 55 SC upheld the decision of NCLT and NCLAT wherein it was held that the entry made in the balance sheet coupled with the note of the auditor of the appellant clearly amounts to acknowledgement of the liability.

The entry made in the Balance Sheet coupled with the note of the Auditor clearly amounts to acknowledgement of the liability – Vidyasagar Prasad Vs. UCO Bank and Anr. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Recovery Certificate issued by DRT would give rise to a fresh cause of action to initiate proceedings under Section 95 of IBC against the Guarantor – State Bank of India Vs. Mrs. J. Geetha – NCLT Chennai Bench

Hon’ble NCLT Chennai Bench held that with regards to limitation, it is relevant to refer to the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dena Bank vs. C. Shivakumar Reddy & Anr. (2021) ibclaw.in 69 SC, where it was held that the Judgment and/or decree for money in favour of the Financial Creditor, passed by DRT, or any other Tribunal or Court, or the issuance of a certificate of recovery in favour of the Financial Creditor, would gave rise to a fresh cause of action for the Financial Creditor, to initiate proceedings under Section 7 of the Code, if the dues of the Corporate Debtor under the Judgment/decree or any part thereof remained unpaid.

Recovery Certificate issued by DRT would give rise to a fresh cause of action to initiate proceedings under Section 95 of IBC against the Guarantor – State Bank of India Vs. Mrs. J. Geetha – NCLT Chennai Bench Read Post »

Whether issue of limitation can be a subject matter of a recall of a judgment passed by NCLAT? – Arunkumar Jayantilal Muchhala Vs. Awaita Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that there is no express provision in the IBC or the Regulations/Rules framed thereunder conferring on this Tribunal the jurisdiction to recall its order on the issue of limitation. Strictly speaking, the issue of limitation cannot be a subject matter of a recall application.

Whether issue of limitation can be a subject matter of a recall of a judgment passed by NCLAT? – Arunkumar Jayantilal Muchhala Vs. Awaita Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Can reply by Personal Guarantor in response to Notice issued by Financial Creditor to Borrowers under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, endorsing to Personal Guarantor, be treated an acknowledgement within meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act? – Mr. Jagdishchandra Mansukhani Vs. STCI Finance Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT observed that a Letter written by Personal Guarantor in response to the Notice issued by Financial Creditor under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, mentioning that borrowers are at advance stage of discussion and the loan is expected to be closed shortly and further Financial Creditor were requested to grant time, contains clear acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act.

The Bench held that it is well settled that acknowledgement whether by Borrower or by Guarantor has effect of extending the limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act.

Can reply by Personal Guarantor in response to Notice issued by Financial Creditor to Borrowers under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, endorsing to Personal Guarantor, be treated an acknowledgement within meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act? – Mr. Jagdishchandra Mansukhani Vs. STCI Finance Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Does TDS deduction on the interest payable constitute any acknowledgment of liability as outstanding claimed to be in default? | Can interest be clubbed along with the debt to cross threshold limit of Rs. 1 crore under Section 4 of IBC on the basis of interest clause mentioned in the invoices – Sudarshan Paper & Board Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Verges Properties LLP – NCLT Kolkata Bench

Hon’ble NCLT Kolkata Bench refers various judgments and held that interest clause in invoice is not good enough and has to be supported with agreement by the Corporate Debtor/buyers for payment of such interest. Debits notes issued on Interest are unilateral and the Corporate Debtor has never agreed to pay. TDS deduction on the interest payable does not constitute any acknowledgment of liability as outstanding claimed to be in default.

Does TDS deduction on the interest payable constitute any acknowledgment of liability as outstanding claimed to be in default? | Can interest be clubbed along with the debt to cross threshold limit of Rs. 1 crore under Section 4 of IBC on the basis of interest clause mentioned in the invoices – Sudarshan Paper & Board Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Verges Properties LLP – NCLT Kolkata Bench Read Post »

Period spent in IA under Rule 49 of NCLT Rules, 2016 for recall of NCLT’s order cannot be excluded as defect of jurisdiction under Section 14 of Limitation Act, if the IA was decided on merits – Srigopal Choudhary Vs. Srei Equipment Finance Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT referring various judgments has dismissed the appeal for condonation of 209 days in filing of the Appeal.

Period spent in IA under Rule 49 of NCLT Rules, 2016 for recall of NCLT’s order cannot be excluded as defect of jurisdiction under Section 14 of Limitation Act, if the IA was decided on merits – Srigopal Choudhary Vs. Srei Equipment Finance Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top