Sanjay Ramakant Kudapkar vs Sydicate Bank & Anr

Sanjay Ramakant Kudapkar ...Appellant

Versus

Syndicate Bank & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Narender Singh Yadav, Advocate. For Respondents:

ORDER

(Virtual Mode)

13.12.2021: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant. This Appeal has

been filed by Ex-Director of the Corporate Debtor against whom the CIRP has

been initiated by order dated 16.09.2021 by the Adjudicating Authority (National

Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench. The Application was filed by the

Financial Creditor for default of amount of Rs.11,65,41,666.41/-. The

submission which was raised by the Corporate Debtor is that the Application was

barred by time. It is submitted that in the Application, the date of default is

mentioned as 31.03.2013 and Application having been filed after three years

thereafter is barred by time.

2. The Learned Adjudicating Authority has considered the submissions and

returned finding that in view of the One Time Settlement (OTS) offer which was

Cont'd....../ -2-

given by the Corporate Debtor on 30.03.2016 and further letter dated 17.08.2016

there shall be extension of limitation.

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that even if it is accepted that

there was proposal for One Time Settlement that could not be treated to be

acknowledgment of the entire debt. Hence, the Application of the Financial

Creditor was wrongly admitted which should have been dismissed as barred by

time.

4. We have considered submissions of Learned Counsel for the Appellant and

perused the record. There is no dispute that from the Application filed under

Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short 'Code') it was

clear that the date of default is 31.03.2013. The One Time Settlement which was

offered by the Corporate Debtor was on 30.03.2016 for Rs.3,33,39801/-. On

17.08.2016, the Corporate Debtor has written a letter to the Financial Creditor

for extension of three months' time for submission of the OTS amount. The

Learned Adjudicating Authority after taking the aforesaid two dates in

consideration, when offer for settlement was made by the Corporate Debtor, held

the Application of the Financial Creditor within time.

5. We are of the view that the Adjudicating Authority has rightly relied on the

Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Dena Bank (now Bank of Baroda) Vs. C.

Shivakumar Reddy & Another', where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that

One Time Settlement Offer amounts to acknowledgment of debt under Section 18

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1013 of 2021 -3-

of the Limitation Act giving extended time of limitation. We, thus, are of the

opinion that Application under Section 7 was rightly admitted by the Adjudicating

Authority not being barred by limitation. We, thus, do not find any merit in this

Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Justice Jarat Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical) Archana/nn.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1013 of 2021