AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 1296
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i Dhruv Gupta, Advocates JUDGEMENT A.I.S. Cheema, 1. The Appellant/Financial Creditor (India SME Asset Reconstruction Co. Limited) is assignee of a debt availed by Respondent - Corporate Debtor (Medirad Tech India Limited) from IDBI Bank Ltd. and Axis Bank Ltd. vide assignment deed dated 12th December, 2012 (Page - 231 of documents filed - Diary No.8538) and assignment deed dated 30th March, 2011 (Page - 193 of documents filed - Diary No.8538), respectively. 2. The Appellant filed Application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC - in short) before the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench) No.(IB)-1243(ND)2018 claiming that there was outstanding debt of Rs. 39,20,76,48....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Appellant points out that the debt owed to IDBI Bank was supported by mortgage of immovable properties by the Corporate Debtor and Corporate Debtor had filed Writ Petition No.13910/2012 against IDBI Bank before the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack (Page 447 - Diary No.8538). It is argued that both the banks had initiated litigations on the basis of law as was applicable at the concerned time and with the coming into force of IBC, relief as now available was resorted to and thus, it cannot be said that the debt was time barred. Appellant also claims that there was creation of charge by the Respondent in favour of Axis Bank on 10.8.2004 and in favour of IDBI Bank on 06.08.2003 and on 23rd April, 2001 and later on, there was modification of ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the balance sheet of Corporate Debtor would tantamount to acknowledgement under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act - in short) as according to the Respondent, the name of the two banks does not mean the name of the Appellant - India SME Asset Reconstruction Co. Limited is reflected. Apart from this, it is claimed that in the Balance Sheet relied on by the Counsel for the Appellant, the Company has mentioned in the same Balance Sheet (at Pages 154 and 155 - Diary No.8538) regarding the pending litigations. According to the Respondent, Article - 62 of the Limitation Act would not be helpful as it relates to Suit. 6. Keeping in view Judgement relied on and arguments, we have gone through the record, especially, F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7. With regard to Axis Bank, the Application filed before Adjudicating Authority shows that on 27th February, 2004, Corporate Debtor sought and was sanctioned working capital of Rs. 50 Lakhs and granted term loan of Rs. 500 Lakhs. Axis Bank issued sanction letter and term loan was approved of Rs. 500 Lakhs on 17th May, 2004 and Promissory Note and other six documents were executed by the Corporate Debtor on 10.08.2004. Later on, Corporate Debtor applied for further loan of Rs. 200 Lakhs on 18th April, 2005 and necessary documents in this regard were executed on 2nd July, 2005. On 13th March, 2006, sanction letter to restructure the term loan was executed with regard to both the loans and the Corporate Debtor executed necessary doc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad the option to file Suit or resort to proceedings as per SARFAESI Act. IDBI resorted to proceeding under the SARFAESI and the Respondent filed Writ Petition which is said to be pending. The actions resorted to by the Axis Bank and IDBI Bank to get relief under the laws available at the concerned time (and which actions are still pending) show that it cannot be said that the claims moved at that time were barred by limitation. With the coming into force of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, new relief became available and the Appellant resorted to Application under IBC in spite of the other litigation pending. In this view of the matter, we are unable to agree with the claim of the Respondent that the debt was stale or time barred. ....