J M Cotton Ginning And Pressing ... vs Khandesh Builders Private Limited
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1626 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a financial statement of the corporate debtor records a loan as a long-term borrowing, that entry may constitute an acknowledgement of debt for the purpose of extending limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and whether the Section 7 application is within limitation on that basis must be determined by the Adjudicating Authority on the financial statements placed on record. An appellate forum may admit additional documents in an appeal against a dismissal on limitation, where the documents go to the very question of limitation on which the impugned order was rested, so that the appeal is treated as a continuation of the original proceedings and the matter is remanded for fresh determination of the limitation issue rather than decided by the appellate forum itself.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1626 of 2023 & I.A. No. 5873, 5874, 5875 of 2023 IN THE MATTER OF: JM Cotton Ginning and Pressing Company Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Khandesh Builders Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent Present: For Appellants : Mr. Ramchandra Mohan, Adv. For Respondent : Ms. Neha Agarwal, Adv.
ORDER
29.02.2024: This appeal is directed against the order dated
20.10.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law
Tribunal, Mumbai Bench) by which an application bearing CP (IB) No.
77/MB/2023 filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,
2016 (in short 'Code') has been dismissed on the ground of limitation.
2. In brief, case set up by the Appellant is that an Inter Corporate Loan
agreement was executed between the parties on 31.03.2010 for an amount
of Rs. 7,81,55,726/- which was repayable by 31.03.2011 alongwith interest.
The Appellant has claimed that the Corporate Debtor acknowledged the
amount of loan of Rs. 7,81,55,726/- through various letters. The
Adjudicating Authority counted the limitation of three years, in terms of
Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short 'Act') from 31.03.2011 which
expired on 31.03.2014 whereas the first letter produced by the Appellant for
the purpose of acknowledgement was dated 24.03.2013. The Adjudicating
Authority has observed that if the limitation is to be counted, in terms of the
Section 18 of the Act from 24.03.2013 it would again come to an end on
24.03.2016 whereas the second letter of acknowledgement is dated
03.06.2016 which is beyond the period of three years. The Adjudicating Authority has also dismissed the application on the ground that the
Appellant has though been granted time to place on record the financial
statements from 2010-11 to 2020-2021 but the same was not produced,
therefore, there was no material before the Adjudicating Authority to hold
even from the financial statements that there was acknowledgement of debt
and the application filed under Section 7 in January, 2023 would fall within
the period of three years. The Appellant has filed the present appeal
alongwith an application i.e. I.A. No. 5875 of 2023 for placing on record the
additional documents. With this application, the Appellant has sought to
place on record the financial statements starting from the year 2011-12 to
2022-23. During the course of hearing, Counsel for the Appellant has
submitted that in all the financial statements (balance sheet) starting from
the year 2011-12 to 2022-23 the amount in question has been shown as the
long term borrowings which is a sufficient proof of acknowledgement of debt
on the part of the Corporate Debtor. We have also perused the aforesaid
financial statements and found that the amount in question has been so
recorded as long term borrowings.
3. Faced with this argument, Counsel for the Respondent has submitted
that the Appellant, despite availing opportunity, failed to produce the said
financial statement on record, therefore, there is no error in the order of the
Adjudicating Authority in dismissing the application in the absence of any
cogent proof. She has also submitted that even if the financial statements
have now been produced on record, the same is required to be looked into
with an opportunity to the Respondent to contest the same.
4. In reply to this argument, Counsel for the Appellant has argued that
the appeal is continuation of the original proceedings and the Appellant can
place on record the documents which can prove that there is an
acknowledgement of debt on the part of the Corporate Debtor.
5. We have heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record with
their able assistance.
6. Since, the application filed under Section 7 of the Code by the
Appellant has been dismissed only on the ground of limitation that too on
the ground that the Appellant has failed to produce on record the financial
statements showing long term borrowings of the amount in question,
therefore, it would be just and expedient if the impugned order is set aside
and the matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to consider
the financial statements now produce in appeal before this Court and to
take a decision as to whether on the basis of the financial statements, the
application filed under Section 7 is within the limitation or not.
7. With these observations, the present appeal is hereby allowed, the
impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the
Adjudicating Authority to decide the issue of limitation once again after
taking into consideration the financial statements now on record. The
parties are directed to appear before the Adjudicating Authority on 11th
March, 2024. It is needless to mention that the Respondent shall still have
the opportunity to contradict the financial statements placed on record by
the Appellant in accordance with law.
[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)
[Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical) Sheetal/Ravi
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