TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1130
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to the accounts of the Corporate Debtor. c) Pass an order of ad interim injunction restraining the Committee of Creditors of the Corporate Debtor herein from approving any resolution plan or liquidation pending the disposal of the person application (or) in alternative, treat the claim of the Applicant as a contingent liability in the scheme of approval of resolution plan. d) Pass such further or other orders as maybe deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice. 3. The brief facts of the case are that as per the Applicant firm the Respondent/Resolution Professional has rejected the claim made by the Applicant firm to the tune of Rs. 17,07,99,270/- (Rupees Seventeen Crores Seven Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousands Two Hundred and Seventy Only), without proper verification and providing opportunity of being heard. 4. Originally, M/s. Udhyaman Investments Private Limited (Financial Creditor) has filed CP/39(IB)/CB/2018 under Section 7 of I&B Code, 2016 against M/s. Tiffins Barytes Asbestos and Paints Limited (Corporate Debtor) to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIR Process), declare Moratorium and appoint Interim Resol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Satyanarayana had entered into Mineral winning cum-Sale Agreement dated 03.09.2003. Subsequently, a Partnership Agreement came to be entered into between Mr. Satyanarayana and the Corporate Debtor, on 15.12.2003 to carry on the business of mining and selling the minerals till the capital invested by Mr. C. Satyanarayana is recovered by him and there occurred a fallout between both the parties which ended up in a round of litigation at the later point of time. iii) This being so, the Corporate Debtor had independently entered into an oral agreement with the Applicant Firm to deploy machines for mining activities from December, 2003. Later, the Applicant firm had entered into written agreement with the Corporate Debtor on 31.01.2005 relating to deployment of machines, payment of hire charges, monthly rental charges and other allied matters on the insistence of Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor had been paying its bills due to the Applicant firm till 31.03.2005 without any default, and thereafter, started making several defaults from the financial years 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, which resulted in winding up Petition against the Corporate Debtor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lution Professional denying the allegation with regard to non-consideration of the claim within the stipulated time, has stated that the reasons for rejection of the claim has been elaborately mentioned in the email dated 14.12.2018. 9. The Respondent/Resolution Professional has further stated that as per the records furnished to him, the initial Deed of Partnership dated 12.04.2004 of the Applicant had 5 Partners including Mr. C. Satyanarayana, and thereafter, Partnership was reconstituted on 18.02.2005 by excluding the name of Mr. C. Satyanarayana, vide registration dated 01.04.2005. 10. As regards the deployment of machines, payment of hire charges, monthly rental charges and other related matters, the Respondent/Resolution Professional has stated that when the Agreement dated 31.01.2005 was entered into between the Corporate and the Applicant firm, Mr. C. Satyanarayana had already entered into a Mineral Winning cum-Sale Agreement with the Corporate Debtor on 03.09.2003 and a Deed of Partnership between the Corporate Debtor and the said Mr. C. Satyanarayana was entered into on 15.12.2003 to run the business in the name and style "Srisa Minerals". 11. The Respondent/Resolution....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the observations made by the Hon'ble High Court Madras in orders passed by Company Petition No. 326/2010 and pleading of the plaintiff at para 17 of the claim regarding the limitation for the suit, I am of the view that the aspect of limitation has to be adjudicated after conclusion of the full-fledged trial." Therefore, the averment that the limitation has already been decided by the trial court is denied. The Respondent/Resolution Professional by applying the principle laid down under Article 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the period begins to run 3 years 'when the work is done' and admittedly, there were no work done after 31.3.2009 and the Applicant had filed the aforementioned Suit only on 18.9.2014. Therefore, the claim of the Applicant is barred by limitation. 13. On perusal of the pleadings of the parties there arise only issue which is as follows: "(i) Whether the claim of the Applicant firm to the tune of Rs. 17,07,99,230/- arising out of contract dated 31.01.2005 entered with the Corporate Debtor, when the Applicant firm was unregistered, is admissible ?" 14. For better appreciation of the issue a reference maybe made to sub-section (2) of Section 69 of The Indi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case on hand the Applicant firm has relied upon two other contracts dated 03.09.2003 and 15.12.2003, which in fact have been entered by one Mr. C. Satyanarayana with the Corporate Debtor, and are prior to the date of constitution of the unregistered firm which came into being on 12.04.2004. When the firm was reconstituted on 18.02.2005, Mr. C. Satyanarayana was not the partner of the Applicant firm. Therefore, the above mentioned two contracts are personal in nature between Mr. C Satyanarayana and the Corporate Debtor, on the basis of which the Applicant firm cannot raise any claim. The Applicant firm has also referred to oral agreement with the Corporate Debtor to deploy the machines for mining activities from December, 2003 but it is nowhere mentioned as to through whom the said agreement was entered into with the Corporate Debtor and even there is no proof of bills from December, 2003 to till 31.01.2005. Moreover, the fact that the Corporate Debtor had been paying as per the bills due to the Applicant firm till 31.03.2005 and stated to have defaulted for the financial years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. There does not appear any record to substantiate the claim....