Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Dhananjay Singh vs Ram Ratan Modi Irp Of Kaushik Global ...

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal9 January 2023Ashok Bhushan

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The limitation period for an application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is extended where the creditor, after the default, received and acted upon repeated One Time Settlement proposals from the corporate debtor and payments were made pursuant to them, so that the three-year period is computed afresh from the last such proposal. Where a creditor obtains a consent decree in its favour in a recovery proceeding, it is entitled to a fresh three-year period of limitation computed from the date of that decree, in accordance with the principle of the Supreme Court in Dena Bank. An application filed during the period extended by the Supreme Court's order in suo moto writ petition No. 3 of 2020 (the COVID-19 limitation extension) cannot be held to be barred by limitation.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH,NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 744 of 2022IN THE MATTER OF:Dhananjay Singh,Member of theSuspended Board of Director of Corporate Debtor ...AppellantVersusRam Ratan Modi & Anr. ...RespondentsPresent:For Appellant:For Respondent: Mr. Kunal Godhwani, AdvocateAdvocate Siddharth Sangal, Advocate ChiragSharma, for R-2 (SBI)Advocate Azeem for R-1ORDER

09.01.2023: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as the

Learned Counsel for the Respondent.

2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 10.06.2022 by which

order, application filed u/s 7 by the State Bank of India has been admitted.

The Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor aggrieved by the order has

come up in the appeal.

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant challenging the order passed by the

Adjudicating Authority contends that the application u/s 7 was barred by

time and Adjudicating Authority has wrongly held that application to be

within time.

4. It is submitted after the letter for One Time Settlement which was sent

by the Corporate Debtor on 29.11.2016, there is no other event on the basis

of which, the extension of limitation can be granted to the State Bank of India

whereas the application was filed on 04.11.2020. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 744 of 2022 1

5. On 20.11.2016, the application having been filed beyond three years

ought to be rejected.

6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that Adjudicating Authority

has thus committed error in admitting section 7 application.

7. Learned Counsel for the Respondent refuting the submission of Learned

Counsel for the Appellant and submits that various proposal for One Time

Settlement was made by the Corporate Debtor and in pursuance of the One

Time Settlement proposal, payments were also made from time to time which

facts have been noticed by the Adjudicating Authority in paragraph 6.2 of the

judgement.

8. Learned Counsel for the Respondent further submits that there has

been a decree passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in OA which was filed

by the Bank against the Corporate Debtor being OA No. 204/2014 arising out

of TA No. 404/2014 where final decree was passed on 02.05.2017, copy of

which has been brought on record as Annexure R2/3 which is a consent

decree and from the said date, the Bank shall have further three years period

for limitation which came to an end during the COVID period and by virtue of

the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in suo moto writ petition

3 of 2020, the Bank was entitled for a period of limitation and an application

has been filed on 04.11.2020 which was during the relevant period and the

application cannot be said to be barred by time.

9. We have considered the submission of the parties and perused the

records.

10. The Adjudicating Authority in its order has referred to the relevant

materials which have been relied by both the parties. Admittedly, the NP was Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 744 of 2022 2 declared on 30.06.2013 and before the expiry of three years, there was a

request for One Time Settlement in the year 2015, thereafter, the One Time

Settlement offer was made by the Corporate Debtor in the year 2016 on

several dates and last One Time Settlement proposal was made on

23.11.2016. From the One Time Settlement proposal, admittedly the Bank

will have three years period for limitation and before the three years period

was expired, the Bank will further get limitation of three years after the

passing of the consent decree on 02.05.2017.

11. There is a reference of the decree 02.05.2017 in the order and it has

been correctly mentioned in paragraph 3.3 whereas the date of decree has

been wrongly mentioned in paragraph 6.2(iii), the decree being on record, we

are of the view that the Appellant is entitled for the benefit of three years from

the date of passing of decree as per the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Dena Bank. Further, there being order of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in suo moto writ petition 3 of 2020, the application cannot be held to

be barred by time and we see no reasons to interfere with the order of

Adjudicating Authority admitting section 7 application, there is no merit in

the appeal, the appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

ss/nn Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 744 of 2022 3

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