Engin Nasiroglu & Anr vs Rvr Projects Pvt Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 566 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a corporate debtor, by writing, consciously admits a subsisting liability to pay an operational creditor's claim and keeps the matter open by deferring reconciliation and refusing to finalise the reconciliation statement, there is a continuing cause of action, and the operational creditor's claim is not barred by limitation. A writing relied on as an acknowledgement of liability must admit a subsisting jural relationship and a conscious affirmation of an intention to continue that relationship in respect of an existing liability; the admission need not be as to a precise amount or in express words, but a mere admission of past liability, or a statement that the claim is under examination without admitting liability, does not suffice. A corporate debtor which issues job completion certificates recording the value of work executed by the operational creditor, and which responds to a demand by stating that the bills are under reconciliation and seeking joint signing of a reconciliation statement without disputing the claim, has acknowledged the debt; an operational creditor's demand notice under Section 8(1) that is not denied by the corporate debtor is then not defeated by limitation, and the debt is one payable in law for the purposes of Section 9.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order dated 09th July, 2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench-III in CP-IB-158/ND/2018]
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. MR. ENGIN NASIROGLU, Ex-Director & Nominee Shareholder Fernas Construction India Pvt. Ltd., Son of Necat Nasiroglu Space No. S19, Second Floor, Malhan Falcon, Plaza, Plot No.4, Pocket-7, Dwarka New Delhi - 110075. Also At: D-Bakir Mahallesi, Nasiroglu Is MerkeziSokak EV No. 103, Batman 72050, Turkey Through its Constituted Attorney - Mr. Mazlum Dogan
2. FERNAS INSAAT A S Holding Company Fernas Construction India Pvt. Ltd. India Project office at: Space No. S19, Second Floor, Malhan Falcon Plaza, Plot No. 4, Pocket-7, Dwarka, New Delhi- 110075. Also at: Elci Sokak No. 21 06550Y, Ayranci Ankara, Turkey, Through its Authorised Representative- Mr. Mazlum Dogan ...Appellants Vs RVR Projects Pvt. Ltd. # 9-16-29, CBM Compound, Vishakhapatnam - 530003. Also at: A-1/38, 3rd Floor, Safdurjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029. ....Respondent Present:
For Appellants: Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. N. Prashant Kumar Nair and Mr. Samaksh Goyal, Advocates For Respondent: Mr. Akshay Sharma, Advocate -2-
J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.
This appeal has been preferred by shareholder and Director of 'Fernas
Construction India Pvt. Ltd.' (Corporate Debtor) against order dated
09.07.2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law
Tribunal) New Delhi Bench-III wherein application under Section 9 of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'I&B Code')
has been admitted.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that
the amount due or payable as claimed by the operational creditor being
barred by limitation, there is no debt payable in law and therefore the
question of default does not arise.
3. According to appellant - 'Fernas Construction India Pvt. Ltd.'
(Corporate Debtor) had obtained and undertaken projects worth Rs. 2,400
Crore for companies like ONGC Petro Additions Ltd., Indian Oil Corporation
Ltd. extensively working in the Oil & Gas Sector and engaged in constructing
Cross Country Pipeline, Refineries, Petrochemicals, Roads and
Infrastructure etc.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 566 of 2018 -3-
4. The Corporate Debtor had obtained high value projects from Indian
Oil Corporation Ltd. to the tune of Rs. 272 crore at Paradip, Orissa on
15.02.2011 and ONGC Petro Additions Limited to the tune of Rs. 1800 crore
at Dahej, Gujarat sometime thereafter within a gap of couple of months.
5. Fernas Turkey had appointed managerial persons from India to run
the operations in India. Undertaking the said project and managing all work
related to the said project the Appellant had been using data storage and
processing system for the entire work being carried out at the two project
sites. The Corporate Debtor had engaged around 250 to 350 sub-contractors
for the projects.
6. 'Fernas Construction India Pvt. Ltd.' approached the 'RVR Projects
Pvt. Ltd.' to avail its services of piling works for integrated utilities and off-
site package for a Petrochemical Complex situated at Dahej Gujarat and
entrusted to it the first work order for the contract amount of
Rs.10,25,10,275/- on 04.08.2011. The 'RVR Projects Pvt. Ltd.' started
executing the works and raised invoices.
7. It appears that 'Fernas Construction India Pvt. Ltd.' (Corporate
Debtor) released part payment of bills raised. On 09.05.2012 'Fernas
Construction India Pvt. Ltd.' (Corporate Debtor) foreclosed the works and by
that time a sum of Rs. 4,22,20,877/- for which bill was raised was paid.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 566 of 2018 -4-
8. Case of 'RVR Projects Pvt. Ltd.' is that the 'Fernas Construction India
Pvt. Ltd.' issued another work order for an amount of Rs.2,05,02,500/- to
the 'RVR Projects Pvt. Ltd.' (Operational Creditor). The said order was also
foreclosed midway and by that time total amount of work done was
Rs.1,48,00,184/-. The case of 'RVR Projects Pvt. Ltd.' is that the 'Fernas
Construction India Pvt. Ltd.' admitted a debt of Rs.1,45,28,508/- for both
the above work orders on 17.06.2013 and made some past payment
amounting to Rs.42,35,000/- leaving a balance of Rs.1,02,93,508/-
remaining unpaid.
9. The demand notice under Section 8 (1) was issued by 'RVR Projects
Pvt. Ltd.' (Operational Creditor) to the 'Fernas Construction India Pvt. Ltd.'
(Corporate Debtor) on 01.12.2017, which were served on 04.12.2017 and
05.12.2017 by courier and speed post, respectively. Thereafter, having
received no reply, the application under Section 9 was filed by 'RVR Projects
Pvt. Ltd.', which has been admitted.
10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant while
referring to application under Section 9 (Form-5) particularly Part IV & V
submitted that the Operational Creditor has accepted that the cause of
action had taken place in August 2013 when Corporate debtor defaulted to
pay. Therefore, it was submitted that the claim is barred by limitation in
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 566 of 2018 -5-
absence of any subsequent cause of action. Reliance has also been placed
on decision(s) of Hon'ble Supreme Court which we will discuss at
appropriate stage.
11. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - 'RVR
Projects Pvt. Ltd.' (Operational Creditor) referred to the communication
made between the parties and submitted that there is a continuous cause of
action and therefore the claim cannot be said to be barred by limitation.
12. According to him, pursuant to letter dated 17.06.2013 of 'RVR
Projects Pvt. Ltd.' (Operational Creditor), the 'Fernas Construction India Pvt.
Ltd.' (Corporate Debtor) confirming the balance as on 31.03.2013 and
balance credit paying according to books of accounts was shown to be
Rs.1,45,28,508/-. 'RVR Projects Pvt. Ltd.' asked to file under the Micro,
Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 and request its
confirmation to Auditor of the Corporate Debtor within 10 days considered
the balance as confirmed.
13. 'Fernas Construction India Pvt. Ltd.' (Corporate Debtor) issued a
completion certificate on 07.08.2013 wherein actual value of work executed
was shown to be Rs.1,48,00,184.00. The certificate was so issued for the
purpose of billing by 'RVR Projects Pvt. Ltd.' for forthcoming opportunities.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 566 of 2018 -6-
Another (2nd) job completion certificate was issued on 07.08.2013 wherein
actual value of work executed was shown as Rs.4,21,83,810.00.
14. Operational Creditor by registered post on 31.12.2013 intimated the
Corporate Debtor about the work done and amount payable showing total
amount payable to the operational creditor. It was followed by letter dated
03.02.2013.
15. 'Fernas Construction India Pvt. Ltd.' by letter dated 13.12.2013 while
intimated Operational Creditor that it was well within the rights of Corporate
Debtor to allocate work to the Operational Creditor - 'RVR Projects Pvt. Ltd.'
it said that the same shall be commensurate with their capabilities. It was
specifically mentioned that 'Fernas Construction India Pvt. Ltd.' (Corporate
Debtor) is in process of reconciliation of all bills along with supporting
documents and as soon as reconciliation is complete, the true and correct
status of outstanding balance will be communicated to RVR Projects Pvt.
Ltd. (Operational Creditor) and recommended to the Management. RVR
Projects Pvt. Ltd. was requested to depute the concerned personnel from
their accounts department for reconciliation purpose and jointly signing
reconciliation statement, as proved from the copy of the letter dated
13.12.2013, as under.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 566 of 2018 -7-
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 566 of 2018 -8-
16. Thus we find that the Corporate Debtor has taken time for
reconciliation and signing the reconciliation statement but not having
completed it the demand notice was issued by the Operational Creditor
under section 8(1), which was not denied by the Corporate debtor.
17. In 'Valliamma Champaka Pillai V/s Sivathanu Pillai and Others
(1979) 4 SCC', the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that under section 18 of
Limitation Act, one of the essential requirements for a valid
'acknowledgement' under Section 18, is that the writing concerned must
contain an admission of a subsisting liability. A mere admission of past
liability is not sufficient to constitute such an 'acknowledgement'.
18. In 'J.C. Budhraja V/s Chairman, Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd.
and Anr., 2008 2 SCC', the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:-
"It is now well settled that a writing to be an
acknowledgement of liability must involve an
admission of a subsisting jural relationship between
the parties and a conscious affirmation of an
intention of continuing such relationship in regard to
an existing liability. The admission need not be in
regard to any precise amount nor by expressed
words. If a defendant writes to the plaintiff
requesting him to send his claim for verification and
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 566 of 2018 -9-
payment, it amounts to an acknowledgment. But if
the defendant merely says, without admitting
liability, it would like to examine the claim or the
accounts, it may not amount to acknowledgement. In
other words, a writing, to be treated as an
acknowledgement of liability should consciously
admit his liability to pay or admit his intention to pay
the debt."
19. In the present case we find that the 'Fernas Construction India Pvt.
Ltd.' (Corporate Debtor) in its job completion certificate has shown the
actual value of work executed by the Operational Creditor. In reply to the
demand the Corporate debtor intimated the Operational creditor that all the
bills along with supporting documents are in process. It has not disputed
the claim. On the other hand by letter dated 13.12.2013 accepted that as
soon as reconciliation process will be completed the same will be
communicated to the 'RVR Projects Pvt. Ltd.' (Operational Creditor) and
management will be recommended. Corporate Debtor also requested the
Operational creditor to depute personnel for reconcile purpose and to sign
jointly reconcile statement.
20. Till date the 'Fernas Construction India Pvt. Ltd.' (Corporate debtor)
has not completed reconciliation of all the bills and not signed reconcile
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 566 of 2018 -10-
statement and kept matter pending. The matter having kept open by the
Corporate Debtor we hold that there is a continuous cause of action in
absence of completion of reconcile statement jointly signed by the parties.
Substantial liability having been already accepted by the Corporate Debtor
in writing and intention of continuing with relationship in the record, we
hold that the Corporate Debtor has treated and acknowledged the liability
consciously and admitted liability to pay on reconciliation.
21. In view of aforesaid position of law and the facts we hold that the
claim of the Operational Creditor is not barred by limitation, there being
continuous cause of action and the Corporate Debtor cannot take plea that
there is no debt payable to Operational Creditor in law. We find no merit in
this appeal. It is dismissed. No cost.
[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Member (Judicial)
NEW DELHI 19th December, 2018
SA
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 566 of 2018
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