TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1489
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code'' 2016 (In short, I&B Code, 2016) in relation to the default said to have arisen as "Operational Debt" of a sum of Rs. 4,70,25,000/- as disclosed in Part IV of the prescribed Application filed in Form-5 under Rule 6 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "AAA Rules"). 2. The particulars of the Corporate Debtor has been given in Part-II of the prescribed Application which discloses that the Corporate Debtor was incorporated on 06.05.1955 and Corporate Identification Number as L51909TN1955PLC002431 and that the nominal share capital and the paid-up capital has been disclosed as Rs. 220,00,00,000/- and Rs. 58,52,0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which the debt fell due is disclosed in Part IV of the prescribed Application as 10.04.2008. In addition to the claim of Rs. 4,70,25,000/- as principal amount, an interest @ 18% p.a. from 10.04.2008 is also claimed, in all aggregating to Rs. 31,04,89,454/- as on 31.10.2018. 5. Part-V of the prescribed Application discloses that the Orders passed by the Recovery Officer, DRT and Hon'ble DRAT have been enclosed as annexure 2 to 5 of the Application. Further, this Application has been preferred under the authorization given to the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch, No.32, Montieth Road, Red Cross Building, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008, the Authorization Letter is enclosed at page 6 of the typ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... prescribed Application, it is evident that no goods have been supplied to the Corporate Debtor in order to demonstrate any service has been rendered by the Applicant to the Respondent. It is further contended by the Corporate Debtor that there is a pre existing dispute as evident from the several round of litigations as between the Applicant and the Respondent before different forum. In addition, a contention that the debt is barred by limitation is also been taken by the Corporate Debtor in view of Section 238A of the I&B Code, 2016 and that the time period as prescribed by Article 137 of the Schedule under the Limitation Act, 1963, is 3 years and even as per the prescribed format as filed by the Applicant, it is evident that the Applican....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....date in IA-798/2007 and IA-799/2007 in DRC No.34/2007, however, it attained finality in view of repeated challenge made before the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chennai as well as before Hon'ble DRAT subsequently which came to be disposed of only on 03.01.2019, and in the said circumstances, the Respondent cannot claim that the debt is barred by law of limitation. If at all, the period of limitation is to be reckoned, it should be from 03.01.2019. 11. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant during the course of submissions also points out to the Order of Attachment as passed by the Recovery Officer of DRT-II Chennai in IA-798/2007 and IA-799/2007 in DRC No.34/2007 (OA 51/2005) and draws particular attention to the item No.6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt cannot be considered as "Operational Debt" at all, and the Applicant cannot be considered as "Operational Creditor". He also reiterated the details of the contentions as raised in the Reply. 14. We have considered the rival submissions of the contesting parties, it is to be noted that the State Bank of India, being the Applicant herein, has approached this Tribunal as an "Operational Creditor" claiming that the "Operational Debt" is due from the Respondent and that the default has been committed with respect to the same. Looking to the definition of the terms "Operational Creditor" and the "Operational Debt" as defined under Section 5 (20) and (21) as extracted below from the I&B Code, 2019:- "(20) "operational creditor" mean....