Auro Gold Jewellery Private Ltd vs State Bank Of India

IN THE MATTER OF: Leela Amritlal Jain ...Appellant

Versus State Bank of India ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: Advocate Sumesh Dhawan, Advocate Pranati Bhatnagar, Advocate Gaurav Nair. For Respondent:

ORDER

30.01.2023: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.

2. This Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 18th November, 2022

by which order, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai-I has admitted

Section 7 Application of I&B Code, 2016 filed by the State Bank of India.

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant challenging the order raised two

submissions. It is submitted that the Adjudicating Authority committed error in

relying on the date of default mentioned in notice under Section 13(2) of

SARFAESI Act, 2002 whereas it is not the correct date of default. It is further

submitted that acknowledgement given by the Appellant was only to the State 2

Bank of India and the loans for which the Application has been filed were initially

for three banks which subsequently got merged with the State Bank of India.

4. We have heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the record.

5. In so far as the submission of Learned Counsel for the Appellant that date

of default cannot be 02nd August, 2015 which is 60 days from the Notice under

Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 dated 3rd June, 2015, there can be no doubt

that when default was committed in complying to notice under Section 13(2) of

SARFAESI Act, 2002 default was there but in the present case State Bank of

India in its Application under Section 7 has claimed the default on the earlier

date that is 30th September, 2014 which was the date of NPA.

6. We thus proceed to examine the submissions of Learned Counsel for the

Appellant on the basis of date of default i.e. 30th September, 2014. In support of

submission of Appellant that Application was barred by time, Learned Counsel

for the Appellant has relied on the Letter dated 01st July, 2016 which was sent

by the Corporate Debtor to the State Bank of India. It is submitted that Letter at

best is acknowledgement of the dues of the State Bank of India and cannot be

read to be acknowledgement with regard to other 2 banks.

7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant himself has filed the Additional

Documents including Letter dated 26th May, 2016 which is a letter written by

the Appellant in which Letter outstanding dues of the banks have been clearly

mentioned including State Bank of India, State Bank of Patiala and State Bank

of Bikaner at Jaipur which Letter has also been treated as acknowledgement by

Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 45 of 2023 3

the Adjudicating Authority. The Application under Section 7 was filed by the

State Bank of India on 03rd April, 2019. The Letter dated 26th May, 2016 has to

be read as an acknowledgement for all the outstanding dues of different bank.

The Application was well within three years from the said date. Hence, we see no

reason to interfere with the Order impugned.

The Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

Basant/nn

Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 45 of 2023