Mr. Santosh Sharma vs Powertech Engineers & Ors

IN THE MATTER OF: Santosh Sharma Suspended Director of GEPDEC Infratech Limited ...Appellant(s) Versus Powertech Engineers & Anr. ...Respondent(s)

Present: For Appellant(s) : Mr. K. Datta Sr. Adv. with Mr. Saurabh Kalia, Mr. Aryan Data, Mr. Fuzail Ahmed, Mr. Ibad Mustaq, Ms. Akansha Rai, Ms. Dikshita & Mr. Harsh Gurbani, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Ms. Nancy Gautam, Advocate for R-2/IRP Mr. Anuj Tiwari, Mr. Shivendra Nath Mishra, Mr. Sameer Mishra, Mr. Vaibhav Vats & Mr. Vedendra Prasad, Advocates for OC

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

24.09.2026 Heard Shri Krishnendu Datta, Learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the Appellant, and Learned Counsel for the Respondent - Operational

Creditor, and perused the records.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the Appellant, being aggrieved by

the impugned order dated 17.09.2026, passed by the Learned Adjudicating

Authority in C.P. (IB) No. 72/ALD/2025, whereby the CIRP has been initiated

against the Appellant pursuant to an application filed under Section 9 of the Code.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant, at the outset, submits

that, even if the case of the Appellant is accepted as it is, the petition moved by the

Appellant before the Learned Adjudicating Authority under Section 9 of the Code

was time barred.

Elaborating further, it is submitted that the last default according to the

petitioner itself had occurred on 15.09.2019 and by this date even if the suo motto

petition decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is taken into consideration the Page 1|4 petition should have been filed before the 31.08.2024, while the same has been

filed on 04.04.2025, beyond limitation.

It is further submitted that the Learned Adjudicating Authority has relied

upon a communication allegedly sent by the Petitioner/Respondent dated

07.12.2021 and has taken the same as an acknowledgment, in utter disregard of

the provisions contained in Section 18 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, as for

extending the limitation on the basis of an acknowledgment in writing, any

communication of the other party could only be taken into the cognizance.

It is further submitted that the order passed by the Learned Adjudicating

Authority is not sustainable in law and, therefore the same be set aside and or may

be remanded back to the Learned Adjudicating Authority for decision a fresh.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Operational Creditor submits that the

plea of limitation was not taken by the Appellant before the Learned Adjudicating

Authority and had it been taken, a suitable reply would have been filed by the

Operational Creditor.

He further submits that he is not having any objection so far as the remand

of the case to Learned Adjudicating Authority is concerned, however, the remand

should only be confined on the issue of limitation and the further process which

may be undertaken before the Learned Adjudicating Authority should be made time

bound, so that the further delay in decision of the Learned Adjudicating Authority

may not be caused unnecessarily by the Appellant.

We have considered the rival submissions made by Learned Counsel for the

Parties and have perused the record. We notice that the Learned Adjudicating

Authority, in paragraph No. 46 of the impugned judgment, has relied on an e-mail

sent by the Respondent (Petitioner before the Learned Adjudicating Authority) for Page 2|4 extending limitation under Section 18 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. The basic

objection of Learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the same could not have

been taken into cognizance for the purpose of extending the period of limitation

under Section 18 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, as the party who has himself

written some communication may not use it for the purpose of Section 18.

We prima facie agree that the submissions made by Learned Counsel for the

Appellant.

We also notice that no objection has been raised by Learned Counsel for the

Operational Creditor with regard to the remand of the matter to Learned

Adjudicating Authority except that the process before the Learned Adjudicating

Authority be made time-bound. We also notice that the Learned Adjudicating

Authority has also not taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in suo motto petition 03 of 2020 passed on various dates.

In view of the above, for the reasons contained hereinbefore, the impugned

order dated 17.09.2026, passed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority is set aside

and the matter is remanded back to the Learned Adjudicating Authority for

decision a fresh on the question of limitation, only.

For this purpose, we revive the C.P. (IB) No. 72/ALD/2025 on the board of

the Learned Adjudicating Authority.

We further request the Learned Adjudicating Authority to make all efforts to

dispose of the petition afresh, after providing an opportunity of being heard to the

parties, including tendering of fresh documentary evidence, within 30 days from

receipt of a certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid directions, the appeal is finally disposed of.

Page 3|4 There is no order as to costs. Pending I.A.'s if any, is also disposed of.

The parties shall appear before the Learned Adjudicating Authority on

12.10.2026.

[Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan] Member (Judicial)

[Arun Baroka] KS/KM Member (Technical)

Page 4|4