Chandra Srinivasulu vs Richardson & Cruddas (1972)Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 853 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal was filed within time because the period between the application for a certified copy and its delivery is excluded from the limitation period for filing the appeal, as the certified copy dates establish that the appeal fell within thirty days once that period is excluded. An acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act must be made by a person authorised to acknowledge the debt on the corporate debtor's behalf; where the unit in which the claim arose was closed and administrative control had been transferred elsewhere, an acknowledgment issued by a supervisor at the closed unit, who was not so authorised, does not extend limitation. A claim for which the limitation period has expired at the time of the Section 9 application, and which is not saved by a valid acknowledgment, cannot be entertained in insolvency proceedings and is excluded from the operational debt claimed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
In the matter of: Chandra Srinivasulu Proprietor of Srinivas ....Appellant Constructions & Sri Enviro Engineering Vs. Richardson & Cruddas (1972) Ltd. ...Respondent For Appellant Mr. Pogulabonda Pratap, Advocate. For Respondent
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
27.05.2024: I.A. No. 3083 of 2024:- Learned Counsel for the Appellant
submits that there is no delay in the appeal since certified copy was applied
on 28.02.2024 and it was delivered on 11.03.2024 and if the aforesaid period
is excluded, the appeal is filed within 30 days.
2. We find sufficient substance in the submission of the Counsel for the
Appellant. Certified copy filed indicate the date of applying certified copy i.e.
on 28.02.2024 and date of delivery of copy on 11.03.2024. We hold that the
appeal is within time.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 853 of 2024 :-
Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.
2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 22.02.2024 passed
by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai 2
Bench-IV by which order Adjudicating Authority rejected Section 9 application
filed by the Appellant. Appellant's claim to be a sub-contractor who was given
a contract for carrying out certain works and the corporate debtor had sub-
contracted the operational creditor for work orders obtained for maintenance
works from Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited. The operational creditor filed the
claim of Rs.1,54,19,784.22/-. Adjudicating Authority has noticed the details
of the claim in paragraph 14 which is as follows:-
"14. The Bench observes that the Operational Creditor's claim of Rs. 1,54,19,784.22/- comprises of the following:
i) Rs. 94,43,177/- Security deposit,
ii) Rs.36,92,134/- Work Contract Tax,
iii) Rs.22,28,448/- against invoice no. 005 (Rs.20,73,632/-) and 003 (Rs.1,54,816/-) dated 05.01.2019 & 03.01.2019 respectively."
3. Insofar as the claim of Rs.94,43,177/-, it was noticed that the works
done during the period 2011 to 2015 and petition was filed on 05.03.2021,
hence, the claim was barred by time.
4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the supervisor there
in the Chennai office and an authorised officer has given an acknowledgment
on 27.10.2020 due to which there shall be acknowledgment within the
meaning of Section 18 and limitation shall be extended. Adjudicating
Authority has noticed the submission and has held that the work at Chennai
office was closed and unit was closed in the year 2016 and administrative
control was shifted to the Mumbai unit and therefore, acknowledgment issued Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 853 of 2024 & I.A. No. 3083 of 2024 3
by supervisor was unauthorised and the Corporate Debtor had written to
supervisor to abstain from issuing such financial certificate and he was not
authorised to do so.
5. We find that the reasons given by the Adjudicating Authority of not
accepting the said letter as acknowledgment within the meaning of Section 18
is fully justified. When the unit was closed in 2016 and administrative office
was shifted to Mumbai, supervisor sitting at Chennai could not have
acknowledged the debt. We are of the view that the Adjudicating Authority
rightly held that the claim of Rs.94,43,177/- could not have been entertained.
We exclude the claim of Rs.94,43,177/-. Other claims do not fulfil the
threshold. Hence, we do not find any error in the impugned order rejecting
Section 9 application. The appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Anjali/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 853 of 2024 & I.A. No. 3083 of 2024
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free