TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1992
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 to start Insolvency Resolution Process against M/s. Shyam Steel Industries Ltd., the Corporate Debtor because of the Corporate Debtor's inability to pay its dues to the extent of a sum of Rs. 44,73,178.00 towards supply of various kinds of goods and services as mentioned in the agreement dated 09.02.2009 to the Corporate Debtor during the periods between 2009 to 2012. 2. The Operational Creditor produced on record required invoices alongwith the Master Data of the Corporate Debtor company at Annexure "A" to show outstanding dues. It has also produced copy of the demand notice dated 07.10.2017 under section 8 of I & B Code sent on the Corporate Debtor. It has produced on record ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etition may be dismissed. 4. We heard the Ld. Advocates for both the parties at length. We have gone through the pleadings and documents, the provisions of law and various rulings relied on by them. In view of the submissions made at the Bar, the following points are raised for our determination. We record our findings thereon with the reasons stated below: (i) whether the debt claimed herein is legally recoverable? - No. (ii) whether the claim of recovery of debt being already denied, this petition under section 9 of l&B Code, is Maintainable? - No Reasons: (i) and (ii): The following points are not in dispute. The Operational Creditor had supplied various equipments to the Corporate Debtors in between 2009 to 2012. An amount of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vant financial years. Copies of the balance-sheets appear to have been appended to the petition, but nothing from the balance-sheets identified the appellant as a creditor whose debt had been acknowledged to be due by the respondent company. The order impugned, in the circumstances, does not call for any interference. The petitioner had no claim to carry before a Company Court for winding up the respondent." 6. It is also not in dispute that against the above order, the Operational Creditor filed SLP bearing No. 19594 of 2017 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 01.09.2017 dismissed the SLP holding that, "we find no ground to interfere. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed." 7. It ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent, he brought to our notice entry no.vii in Part I of Schedule 3 of Companies Act, 2013, wherein instructions were issued to prepare and maintain the balance-sheet. He submitted that entry of debt shown by the Corporate Debtor in its balance-sheet has to be held as admission of the debt. He further submitted that liability to pay amount ceases to exist only for reason of operation of law or debtor declines his intention to honour the liability. Ld. Counsel relied on ruling CIT v. Sugauli Sugar Works (P.) Ltd. [1999] 2 SCC 355 and in case of the CIT v. Vardhman Overseas Ltd. 2011 SCC Online Delhi 5599. 11. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the provisions of law of Limitations are not applicable to the proceedings before this Tribunal. He....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his point was adequately argued by the Operational Creditor before the Hon'ble High Court in his petition or winding up of Corporate Debtor and the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court rejected the same. 14. It is submitted that the provisions of law of limitation are not applicable to the insolvency proceedings. As far as this aspect is concerned, Ld. Counsel submitted that in case of "Neelkanth Township" and Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Urban Infrastructure Trustees Ltd. [2017] 85 taxmann.com 120/143 SCL 538 (NCL - AT) held that, "if there is a debt which includes interest and there is default of debt and having continuous course of action, the argument that the claim of money by the respondent is barred by limitation cannot be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reated by virtue of contract in favour of any party could be taken away holding that as provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable and recovery of time-barred debt can be made by filing proceeding before this Tribunal. In fact, this Tribunal is basically established to have insolvency resolution and not for recovery of any amount. 16. Be that as it may, here in this case, we find that the Operational Creditor had already approached Hon'ble High Court against the Corporate Debtor for recovery of some dues by way of company petition. The company petition was dismissed and the issue is settled finally and substantially. Now, it cannot be agitated before this Tribunal because if the insolvency resolution process is failed in thi....