Dhananjay Singh vs Ram Ratan Modi Irp Of Kaushik Global ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 744 of 2022
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
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