TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Application for Corporate Insolvency Dismissed Due to Time-Barred Claim</h1> <h3>Bank of Baroda Versus Balaji Coke Industry Pvt. Ltd.</h3> Bank of Baroda Versus Balaji Coke Industry Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues:- Application for initiating corporate insolvency resolution process under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.- Amendment of cause title due to merger of Financial Creditor.- Default in repayment of loan by Corporate Debtor.- Objections raised by Corporate Debtor regarding maintainability and limitation of claim.- Determination of whether the claim is barred by the law of limitation.Analysis:1. The application was filed by Dena Bank to initiate insolvency proceedings against the Corporate Debtor for defaulting on a loan of Rs. 25,00,00,000. Bank of Baroda later filed to amend the cause title due to the merger of the Financial Creditor. The Financial Creditor alleged default in repayment of loans from multiple banks, leading to a total outstanding amount of Rs. 56,19,65,082 as of 30.09.2018.2. The Corporate Debtor contended that the application was an abuse of process, not maintainable, and an attempt to wrongfully recover money. The Corporate Debtor argued that the application was filed beyond the limitation period and challenged the competency of the Power of Attorney holder to initiate proceedings. The Corporate Debtor also highlighted parallel proceedings initiated by the Financial Creditor at another tribunal.3. The Tribunal considered whether the claim was time-barred. The Financial Creditor argued a fresh period of limitation started from a partial repayment made by the Corporate Debtor in 2016. However, the Corporate Debtor claimed the repayment was made by a consortium bank from the sale proceeds of the Corporate Debtor's property, not by the Corporate Debtor itself.4. The Tribunal referred to Section 19 of the Limitation Act, determining that the payment made after the expiry of the prescribed period did not extend the limitation period. The ledger accounts showed the payment was made by the consortium bank, not the Corporate Debtor. As the claim was found to be barred by the law of limitation, the application was dismissed, with parties directed to bear their respective costs.5. The Tribunal issued directions for communication of the order to the Operational Creditor and Corporate Debtor. Certified copies of the order were to be provided upon application. The judgment emphasized the importance of compliance with formalities and the dismissal of the application due to limitation issues.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
