M. Chakravarthi vs Sawhney Trading Company Private ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 178 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, so a Section 9 application is not defeated because the underlying claim falls outside the limitation period. An objection that the operational creditor failed to enclose the complete records with its Section 9 application cannot succeed in appeal absent a specific pleading that the application was defective; a defect in the application is a matter the corporate debtor must raise before the Adjudicating Authority so that the creditor may be allowed to cure it.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
M. Chakravarthi ...Appellant
Vs.
Sawhney Trading Company Private Limited & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant: - Mr. M.A. Venkata Subramanian and Mr. K. Moorthy, Advocates.
ORDER
03.05.2018- This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant against
the order dated 9th April, 2018, passed by the Adjudicating Authority
(National Company Law Tribunal), Chennai Bench, whereby and
whereunder the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "I&B Code") preferred
by the Respondents- M/s. Sawhney Trading Company Private Limited
for 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' against M/s. K.A.
Earthmovers Private Limited has been admitted, order of 'Moratorium'
has been passed and 'Interim Resolution Professional' has been
appointed.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted
that the claim related to the year 2010 and thereby it was barred by
limitation, but such submission cannot be accepted in view of the
decision of this Appellate Tribunal in "M/s. Speculum Plast Pvt. Ltd. -2-
V/s. PTC Techno Pvt. Ltd. ─Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.
47 of 2017", wherein this Appellate Tribunal held that the 'Limitation
Act' will not be applicable to the proceeding under 'I&B Code'.
3. Then it is contended that the total records were not enclosed by
the 'Operational Creditor' as is required under the law, but in absence
of any specific pleading, such arguments cannot be accepted. If there
was any defect in the application, it was open to the Appellant to point
out the same to the Adjudicating Authority to enable the 'Operational
Creditor' to cure the defects. However, as there is nothing on the record
to suggest that the application under Section 9 of the 'I&B Code'
preferred by the Respondent-'Operational Creditor' was defective, we
reject the submission.
4. We find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No
cost.
(Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson
(Justice Bansi Lal Bhat) Member(Judicial) Ar/uk
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 178 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