Earth Gracia Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. ... vs Connoisseur Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 120 of 2020
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a financial creditor's application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is filed more than three years after the date of default, and the corporate debtor has neither acknowledged the debt in writing within the limitation period under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 nor made a part-payment under Section 19 of that Act, the claim is barred by limitation and the amount claimed is not payable in law, so the application is liable to be rejected by the Adjudicating Authority. Where Part V of Form 1 under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 discloses no evidence of default and no date of default, and the default date is more than three years before the application, the Adjudicating Authority is right to reject the Section 7 application, there being no ground for interference on appeal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Versus Connoisseur Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent Present: For Appellant : Ms. Varsha Banerjee, Advocate
ORDER
30.01.2020 The Resolution Professional of 'Earth Gracia Buildcon Private Limited' moved an Application under Section 7 of the 'Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016' ('I&B Code', for short) for initiation of the 'corporate insolvency resolution process' against 'Connoisseur Infrabuild Private Limited' (Corporate Debtor).
2. The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench -V, New Delhi, by impugned order dated 9th December, 2019 rejected the Application as the claim is barred by limitation.
3. The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that 'Connoisseur Infrabuild Private Limited' (Corporate Debtor) is a group company of 'Earth Gracia Buildcon Private Limited' (Appellant). Without a joint 'corporate insolvency resolution process' of 'Earth Gracia Buildcon Private Limited', which is undergoing 'corporate insolvency resolution process' along with 'Connoisseur Infrabuild Private Limited' (Corporate Debtor), there cannot be a resolution. Therefore, the application under Section 7 of the 'I&B Code' should have been entertained. It is further submitted that if it is not allowed then there will be a 2
liquidation and in such case, there will be no maximization of 'Earth Gracia Buildcon Private Limited' (the Appellant, which is undergoing the 'corporate insolvency resolution process').
4. On the question of limitation, it is submitted that the Application was moved only when the 'Corporate Debtor' defaulted in making the payment after the Demand Notice was issued by the Appellant and, therefore, the Application under Section 7 is not barred by limitation. It is submitted that no Agreement was reached between the parties and there has been no question of declaring the assets 'Non-Performing Assets' (NPA). The amounts were transferred to the Bank or by way of RTGS which are based on record.
5. Form 1 (application under Section 7) filed by the Appellant shows the following particulars of the 'Financial Debt' at part-IV is as under :
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 120 of 2020 3
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 120 of 2020 4
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 120 of 2020 5
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 120 of 2020 6
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 120 of 2020 7
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 120 of 2020 8
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 120 of 2020 9
6. Particular evidence of default has been shown at Part-V, which is required
to be given in Part V and no evidence has been brought on record except the
'Audited Balance-sheet' of the financial year ending 31st March, 2015, ledger of
the 'Corporate Debtor' prepared by the 'Financial Creditor' and 'extract of Books
of Account' extracted below:
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 120 of 2020 10
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 120 of 2020 11
7. In "Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank (2018) 1 SCC 407" the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed and held :
"27. The scheme of the Code is to ensure that when
a default takes place, in the sense that a debt
becomes due and is not paid, the insolvency
resolution process begins. Default is defined in
Section 3(12) in very wide terms as meaning non-
payment of a debt once it becomes due and payable,
which includes non-payment of even part thereof or
an instalment amount. For the meaning of "debt", we
have to go to Section 3(11), which in turn tells us that
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 120 of 2020 12
a debt means a liability of obligation in respect of a
"claim" and for the meaning of "claim", we have to go
back to Section 3(6) which defines "claim" to mean a
right to payment even if it is disputed. The Code gets
triggered the moment default is of rupees one lakh or
more (Section 4). The corporate insolvency resolution
process may be triggered by the corporate debtor
itself or a financial creditor or operational creditor. A
distinction is made by the Code between debts owed
to financial creditors and operational creditors. A
financial creditor has been defined under Section 5(7)
as a person to whom a financial debt is owed and a
financial debt is defined in Section 5(8) to mean a
debt which is disbursed against consideration for the
time value of money. As opposed to this, an
operational creditor means a person to whom an
operational debt is owed and an operational debt
under Section 5(21) means a claim in respect of
provision of goods or services.
28. When it comes to a financial creditor triggering the
process, Section 7 becomes relevant. Under the
explanation to Section 7(1), a default is in respect of
a financial debt owed to any financial creditor of the
corporate debtor - it need not be a debt owed to the
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 120 of 2020 13
applicant financial creditor. Under Section 7(2), an
application is to be made under sub-section (1) in
such form and manner as is prescribed, which takes
us to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to
Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. Under Rule 4,
the application is made by a financial creditor in
Form 1 accompanied by documents and records
required therein. Form 1 is a detailed form in 5 parts,
which requires particulars of the applicant in Part I,
particulars of the corporate debtor in Part II,
particulars of the proposed interim resolution
professional in part III, particulars of the financial
debt in part IV and documents, records and evidence
of default in part V. Under Rule 4(3), the applicant is
to dispatch a copy of the application filed with the
adjudicating authority by registered post or speed
post to the registered office of the corporate debtor.
The speed, within which the adjudicating authority
is to ascertain the existence of a default from the
records of the information utility or on the basis of
evidence furnished by the financial creditor, is
important. This it must do within 14 days of the
receipt of the application. It is at the stage of Section
7(5), where the adjudicating authority is to be
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 120 of 2020 14
satisfied that a default has occurred, that the
corporate debtor is entitled to point out that a default
has not occurred in the sense that the "debt", which
may also include a disputed claim, is not due. A debt
may not be due if it is not payable in law or in fact.
The moment the adjudicating authority is satisfied
that a default has occurred, the application must be
admitted unless it is incomplete, in which case it may
give notice to the applicant to rectify the defect within
7 days of receipt of a notice from the adjudicating
authority. Under sub-section (7), the adjudicating
authority shall then communicate the order passed
to the financial creditor and corporate debtor within
7 days of admission or rejection of such application,
as the case may be."
8. In Part - IV of Form 1, we find that the amounts were transferred by the
Appellant to the 'Corporate Debtor' in the years 2013, 2014 and 2015. The last
transfer was made on 29th December, 2015 and before completion of the three
years i.e. 28th December, 2018, the 'Corporate Debtor' has not acknowledged the
'debt' in terms of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It is also not the case
of the Appellant that the 'Corporate Debtor' made a part-payment to get
advantage of Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963. We hold that the claim of
the Appellant is barred by limitation and, therefore, the claimed amount is not
payable in law.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 120 of 2020 15
9. Part-V of 'Form 1' shows that no evidence of default and no date of default
was shown therein. It was also shown that default date had crossed more than
3 years. In this background, the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law
Tribunal), New Delhi has rightly rejected the Application under Section 7 and we
find no ground to interfere with the same.
The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[ Shreesha Merla ] Member (Technical)
/ns/gc/
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 120 of 2020
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