TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (7) TMI 452
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....18 wherein Mr. Jai Parkash Goyal, managing director, of the petitioner, has been authorized to file the petition against M/s. Inderjit Forgings P. Ltd. There is also an affidavit in support of the contents of the application. The identification number of the petitioner-operational creditor is U00000PB1999PTC022272 and its registered address is in District Fatehgarh Sahib, in the State of Punjab. 3. M/s. Inderjit Forgings P. Ltd. (for short hereinafter referred to as the "respondent" and/or "corporate debtor") is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 with authorized share capital of Rs. 75,00,000 and paid-up capital of Rs. 74,25,000. The CIN of the respondent-corporate debtor is U28939PB1987PTC007780 and its registered office is situated in District Ludhiana in the State of Punjab and therefore, the matter falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Copy of the master data of the respondent-corporate debtor is at annexure 6 of the petition. 4. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the petitioner-operational creditor is a duly registered company under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner-operational creditor is engag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,40,272 respectively, which are stated by the petitioner-operational creditor as unpaid, are bogus. It is further stated that no goods have been supplied by the petitioner-operational creditor as claimed in these invoices and neither these invoices have been accepted by the respondent, nor there was any delivery taken upon these invoices. It is also stated that the respondent has cleared all the dues of the operational creditor by making a payment dated July 4, 2013 of Rs. 1,00,083. 8. The petitioner-operational creditor filed its rejoinder vide Diary No. 1908, dated April 12, 2019 and has stated that the date of dispatch of demand notice and invoice in Form Nos. 3 and 4 was sent on February 5, 2018 before the implementation of limitation period under section 238A of the Code and the criminal proceedings under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which were initiated before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amloh, on February 30, 2016 both within the limitation period. It is also submitted that the invoices which the corporate debtor has referred to in its reply, i. e., Invoice Nos. 1085 and 1086 dated July 8, 2013 are appended with the petition as annexure 1, are genuine as the evide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Limitation Act, i. e., 12 years to enforce payment of money secured by a mortgage or otherwise charged upon immovable property and admitted the CP. The hon'ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, vide the impugned judgment held that the time of limitation would begin running for the purposed of limitation only on and from December 1, 2016 which is the date on which the Code was brought into force and consequently, dismissed the appeal. In this backdrop of the facts, the hon'ble Supreme Court held that article 62 has no application to the applications filed under the Code and article 137 is only applicable to the same. The relevant paragraphs read as under (page 252 of 8 Comp Cas-OL) : "Mr. Aditya Parolia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that article 137 being a residuary article would apply on the facts of this case, and as right to sue accrued only on and from July 21, 2011 three years having elapsed since then in 2014, section 7 application filed in 2017 is clearly out of time. He has also referred to our judgment in B. K. Educational Services P. Ltd. v. Parag Gupta and Associates [2018] SCC Online SC 1921 ; [2019] 212 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y High Court for specific performance of the letter of undertaking by La-Fin or, in the alternative, for damages. It is stated in the plaint that the cause of action for the suit arose on August 16, 2012, i. e., the day La-Fin purportedly refused to honour its obligation under the letter of undertaking. On October 21, 2016 a winding up petition was filed by IL and FS against LaFin in the Bombay High Court under section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956. The Code came into force on December 1, 2016 and as a result, as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, the winding up petition was transferred to the National Company Law Tribunal as a section 7 application under the Code. The statutory form under these Rules, namely, Form No. 1 was filled up by IL and FS indicating that the date of default was August 19, 2012. On August 28, 2018 the said winding up petition was admitted by the National Company Law Tribunal as an application under section 7 of the Code. The hon'ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal on January 21, 2019-(Pushpa Shah v. IL and FS Financial Services Ltd. [2019] 215 Comp Cas 391 (NCLAT)) dismissed the appeal, agr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... In Sagar Sharma v. Phoenix ARC P. Ltd. [2019] 8 Comp Cas-OL 581 (SC) ; [2019] SCC Online SC 1332, decided on September 30, 2019 it was held that date of coming into force of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, does not and cannot form a trigger point of limitation for applications filed under the Code and if the applications are filed under section 7, article 137 of the Limitation Act, alone will apply. The said judgment reads as under (page 583 of 8 Comp Cas-OL) : "By our judgment dated October 11, 2018 in B. K. Educational Ser vices P. Ltd. v. Parag Gupta and Associates [2018] SCC Online SC 1921 ; [2019] 212 Comp Cas 1 (SC) in paragraphs 2, 20, 38, 43, 48 and 49 we had made it clear that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code's coming into force on December 1, 2016 is wholly irrelevant to the triggering of any limitation period for the purposes of the Code. However, we find that in the impugned judgment the following statement is made : 'Admittedly, the "I and B Code" has come into force since December 1, 2016, therefore, the right to apply accrued to the first respondent on December 1, 2016. Therefore, we hold that the application under section 7 wa....