Tribunal Admits IBC Application, Declares Moratorium

The tribunal admitted the application under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016, initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the corporate debtor. It declared a moratorium, appointed an Interim Resolution Professional, and rejected the debtor's arguments on limitation period and signatory competency, emphasizing continuous acknowledgment of debt in financial statements.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Precedence of law over Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and its impact on Section 7 proceedings.
2. Whether the debt is time-barred under the Limitation Act, 1963.
3. Acknowledgement of debt in financial statements and its implications under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
4. Competency of the person who signed and filed the application under Section 7 of IBC.
5. Declaration of moratorium and appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Precedence of Law Over Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and Its Impact on Section 7 Proceedings:
The tribunal held that at the stage of admission under Section 7 of IBC, the primary conditions to be considered are whether there exists a debt that is due and payable and if a default has occurred. The attachment of assets by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) does not affect the admissibility of the petition. The tribunal rejected the contention of the corporate debtor that no resolution could be possible due to the attachment of assets by the ED, citing that such issues would be considered during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

2. Whether the Debt is Time-Barred Under the Limitation Act, 1963:
The tribunal noted that the debt and default were not in dispute. The corporate debtor argued that the debt was time-barred as the Non-Performing Asset (NPA) was declared in 2013, and the financial statements showing the debt were from 2018, beyond the three-year limitation period. However, the tribunal held that the continuous appearance of the debt in financial statements constitutes a continuous acknowledgment of debt, thereby extending the limitation period under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The tribunal cited various judicial decisions to support this view, including the cases of UCO Bank v. Kaizen Power Ltd. and Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/s Sri Balaji Metals and Minerals Pvt. Ltd.

3. Acknowledgement of Debt in Financial Statements and Its Implications Under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963:
The tribunal emphasized that the presentation of debt in financial statements or the auditor’s report amounts to an acknowledgment of debt by the corporate debtor. This acknowledgment extends the limitation period as per Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The tribunal extensively quoted from previous judgments to reinforce this point, including the cases of Trinetra Electronics Limited v. McNally Bharat Engineering Co. Limited and Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. Dagcon (India) Private Limited.

4. Competency of the Person Who Signed and Filed the Application Under Section 7 of IBC:
The tribunal found that the person who signed and filed the application under Section 7 of IBC was duly authorized. The tribunal referred to the Board Resolutions and other relevant documents that authorized the signatory to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the corporate debtor. The tribunal rejected the corporate debtor’s contention on this ground, citing the decision of the Hon’ble NCLAT in the case of Ramesh Chander Gupta.

5. Declaration of Moratorium and Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP):
The tribunal declared a moratorium as per Sections 13 and 15 of the IBC, 2016, prohibiting certain actions against the corporate debtor, including the institution or continuation of suits, transferring or disposing of assets, and recovery of property. The tribunal appointed Ms. Ramanathan Bhuvaneswari as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) and directed the financial creditor to pay an advance fee to the IRP. The IRP was tasked with conducting the CIRP in a time-bound manner and making a public announcement of the initiation of CIRP.

Conclusion:
The tribunal admitted the application filed by the financial creditor under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016, initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the corporate debtor. The tribunal declared a moratorium and appointed an Interim Resolution Professional, emphasizing the continuous acknowledgment of debt in financial statements and rejecting the corporate debtor’s contentions regarding the limitation period and the competency of the signatory.

---