Just a moment...

Top
Help
Upgrade to AI Tools

We've upgraded AI Tools on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:

1. Basic
Quick overview summary answering your query with referencesCategory-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI

2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
Detailed report covering:
     -   Overview Summary
     -   Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
     -   Relevant Case Laws
     -   Tariff / Classification / HSN
     -   Expert views from TaxTMI
     -   Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy

• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:

Explore AI Tools

Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2019 (10) TMI 501

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rate insolvency resolution process' against 'Valley Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.' (Corporate Debtor), the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench by impugned order dated 17th December, 2018 rejected the application on the ground that the claim is barred by limitation with the following observations : "11. It is not disputed that Rs. 39,46,440.26 has already been paid by the Respondent to the applicant after issuance of demand notice under Section 8. It is seen that Rs. 54,46,440.26 was the actual amount of unpaid amount due to be paid by the Respondent. Rs. 15,00,000/- was paid by the Respondent through 3 demand drafts in the month of Feb 2018. It is admitted by the petitioner in its petition that out of claim of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... noticed that by Demand Drafts of February, 2018, Respondent paid certain amount. In such case, we are of the view that the amount having last paid in February, 2018 the application is not barred by limitation. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that after issuance of Demand Notice u/s 8(1), the Respondent also paid a sum of Rs. 39,46,440.26 through RTGS dated 31st May, 2018, therefore, it cannot be said to be a delay or held to be beyond limitation as held by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank [ Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank, (2018) 1 SCC 407] : 27. The scheme of the Code is to ensure that when a default takes place, in the sense that a debt becomes....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....any financial creditor of the corporate debtor - it need not be a debt owed to the applicant financial creditor. Under Section 7(2), an application is to be made under sub-section (1) in such form and manner as is prescribed, which takes us to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. Under Rule 4, the application is made by a financial creditor in Form 1 accompanied by documents and records required therein. Form 1 is a detailed form in 5 parts, which requires particulars of the applicant in Part I, particulars of the corporate debtor in Part II, particulars of the proposed interim resolution professional in Part III, particulars of the financial debt in Part IV and documents, records and evidence o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iver a demand notice of the unpaid debt to the operational debtor in the manner provided in Section 8(1) of the Code. Under Section 8(2), the corporate debtor can, within a period of 10 days of receipt of the demand notice or copy of the invoice mentioned in sub-section (1), bring to the notice of the operational creditor the existence of a dispute or the record of the pendency of a suit or arbitration proceedings, which is pre-existing-i.e. before such notice or invoice was received by the corporate debtor. The moment there is existence of such a dispute, the operational creditor gets out of the clutches of the Code." From the aforesaid finding, it is evident that the claim is disputed, we find that the ground of delay wrongly shown by t....