Application Dismissed: Claim Barred by Limitation, Deemed Not Genuine. Exorbitant Amount.

The tribunal dismissed the application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, finding it barred by limitation. The financial creditor's claim was deemed not genuine, with no valid acknowledgement of debt to extend the limitation period. The tribunal also concluded that the claim amount was exorbitant and unconscionable, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and ruling out initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Barred by Limitation
2. Principal of Acquiescence and Estoppel
3. Genuineness of Financial Creditor's Claim
4. Acknowledgement of Debt
5. Calculation of Default Amount

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Barred by Limitation:
The application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) was filed on April 5, 2019, with the date of default mentioned as March 4, 2004. The appellant argued that the limitation period was extended due to acknowledgements of debt by the respondent in balance sheets and letters. However, the tribunal found that none of the letters or balance sheets acknowledged the debt as claimed by the appellant. The tribunal concluded that the application was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond the three-year period from the date the right to sue accrued.

2. Principal of Acquiescence and Estoppel:
The respondent argued that the application was barred by the principle of acquiescence and estoppel. The tribunal observed that the respondent had paid the cash component of Rs. 7.5 crores as per the negotiated settlement, and the only default was the non-allotment of 10 lakh equity shares and failure to buy back the shares. The tribunal found that the financial creditor's claim was not genuine and was based on an unconscionable agreement.

3. Genuineness of Financial Creditor's Claim:
The tribunal held that the financial creditor's claim was not genuine. The tribunal noted that after the negotiated settlement, the respondent had paid the cash component of Rs. 7.5 crores, and the only default was related to the equity shares. The tribunal found that the financial creditor had inflated the claim amount to Rs. 265.02 crores based on whimsical interest rates, penal interest rates, and liquidated damages, which was not justified. The tribunal concluded that the financial creditor's claim was exorbitant and unconscionable.

4. Acknowledgement of Debt:
The appellant relied on letters dated July 2, 2015, and October 3, 2017, and balance sheets to argue that there were acknowledgements of debt. The tribunal found that the letters and balance sheets did not acknowledge the debt as claimed by the appellant. The letters referred to the default in compliance with the allotment of equity shares and did not acknowledge the original loan amount or the amount claimed in the loan recall notice dated March 4, 2004. The tribunal concluded that there was no acknowledgement of the debt that could extend the limitation period.

5. Calculation of Default Amount:
The appellant claimed an amount of Rs. 265.02 crores, which included the original loan amount and interest calculated up to the date of the application. The tribunal found that the claim was based on an unconscionable agreement and was not justified. The tribunal noted that the negotiated settlement was revoked due to the respondent's failure to allot equity shares and buy back the shares, and the claim should have been confined to the amount related to the equity shares. The tribunal concluded that the financial creditor's claim was exorbitant and not genuine.

Conclusion:
The tribunal dismissed the application under Section 7 of the IBC, finding that it was barred by limitation, the financial creditor's claim was not genuine, and there was no acknowledgement of debt that could extend the limitation period. The tribunal also found that the financial creditor's claim was exorbitant and unconscionable, and the application was not a fit case for admission or initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The appeal was dismissed.

---