TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 324
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efault on the part of the Respondent in settling an amount of Rs. 27,97,788 /- including interest are lying towards the goods supplied by the Applicant. The details of transactions leading to the filing of this application as averred by the Applicant are as follows: i. That the applicant supplied the basic and high temperature refectories items to M/s. Rathi Ispat Ltd. (Respondent) on various dates through various invoices. ii. The applicant stated that the details of the invoices/ bills against which the outstanding amount is due and a copy of all the invoices of year 2006-2007 and bank statement of transaction between parties have been annexed with the application. iii. The applicant further submitted that as pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nst the Respondent and its director for recovery of Rs. 27,97,788/- before the Ld. Civil Judge (Senior Devision), District Courts, Faridabad, Haryana. viii. That the Decree was passed on 26.09.2016, by Mrs. Saurab Gussain, Ld. Civil Judge (Senior division) District Courts, Faridabad, Haryana in favour of the applicant in the said Civil Suit titled as M/s. Paragon Ceramics versus Rathi Ispat Ltd., holding that the applicant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 27,97,788/- along with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing i.e. 11.03.2011 to 10.03.2018 (84 months) amounting to Rs. 17,62,606/- apart from cost of litigation of Rs. 1,32,162/- plus interest on amount of Form "C" @ 9% is Rs. 10,97,328/-which now totals to Rs. 57,89,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t by all modes. However, the Applicant during the hearing on 11.10.2018 contended that the affidavit of service has been filed, No one has represented on behalf of the Respondent. However, despite service of notice by all modes, none appeared on behalf of the Respondent and as a result the Respondent was proceeded ex-parte on 11.10.2018. 3. The Respondent filed CA No. 155/2018 with the prayer to set aside the ex-parte order passed against the respondent on 11.10.2018. The learned counsel for the Respondent stated that the application was served on the old address of the Respondent and placed on record the Company master data of the Respondent company which is reflecting the new address of the Respondent. The Respondent also placed on rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e October, 2007 when Punjab National bank being head of consortium Banks have taken action against the respondent company under SARFAESI Act and consequent thereto have taken over possession of all assets of the company vide possession notice dated 28.12.2007 and therefore, the applicant needs to file its claim before the said bank. vi. The Respondent submits that due to heavy losses and unforeseen closure of production of the Respondent Company, there are other number of cases which has been filed by different entities and persons before different courts and some of them have been decreed and some are still pending in the Hon'ble courts. That the winding up petitions filed against the respondent Company and pending before Hon&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss of Respondent is C-235, Savitri Nagar, Delhi. iii. The Respondent further submitted that the objection application dated 08.09.2017 to the execution application filed by the Applicant before Faridabad court concerned, the Punjab National Bank had clarified that it has taken only the symbolic possession of the mortgaged property/ factory but could not sell it out so far. As, taking symbolic possession of some of the assets of the Respondent does not bar the applicant from filing the above said petition and that the same is maintainable before this Hon'ble Tribunal. 6. We have gone through the documents filed by both the parties and from the perusal of the application filed by both the applicant it is clear that the applica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the present case. mere filing of a suit for recovery or a decree passed by a court cannot be held to be deferment of default is the date for the purpose of computing the period of limitation of application under section 7. The same principle is applicable in the present case, mere filing of a suit for recovery or a decree passed by a court cannot be held to be deferment of default. A suit for recovery of money can be filed only when there is a default of dues. Even if the decree is passed, the date of default does not shift forward to the date of decree or date of payment for execution, Decree can be executed within specified period i.e. 12 years. If it is executable within the period of limitation, one cannot allege that there is a defaul....