TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 467
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hority (National Company Law Tribunal), Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad in Company Petition (IB) No.645/7/HDB/2018, whereby the Learned Adjudicating Authority rejected the Application filed by the Appellant herein. BRIEF FACTS: 2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted the brief facts: He submitted that the Appellant Bank granted various credit facilities to the Respondent w.e.f. 26th March 2011. However, the Respondent started defaulting in repayment of the loans. The Appellant Bank and the Consortium of Lenders approved a CDR package for the Respondent and the terms were contained in a Master Restructuring Agreement dated 26th September 2013. The CDR EG decided to allow the Respondent to submit a concrete proposal for revival. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (for short 'CIRP'). Further, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the, only ground taken by the Learned Adjudicating Authority is that the Application is barred by limitation by taking into consideration the date of declaring the NPA as date of default by following the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in B.K. Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Parag Gupta and Associates. However, Per contra the Learned Counsel relied upon various judgements, in support of his case. 6. In view of the submissions made the Learned Counsel prayed the Bench to allow the Appeal by setting aside the impugned Order dated 27th March 2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Hyderabad Bench. 7. The Le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uary 2015. Thus, even for the sake of arguments, if the period of limitation, is reckoned from 26th September 2013 i.e. the date of MRA or even from 31st January 2015, when the Respondent stood exited, the Application filed by the Appellant before the Hon'ble NCLT on 12th September 2018, is still barred by limitation. In view of the submissions made the Learned Counsel prayed this Bench to dismiss the Appeal as barred by Limitation. 9. Heard, the Learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the pleadings, documents and citations relied upon by the parties. 10. The Learned Adjudicating Authority has rejected the Application by passing a detailed and well-reasoned order. At para 22 of the Impugned Order, page 42 of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ree with the finding(s) given by the Learned Adjudicating Authority, that the Application is barred by limitation. Further, the Learned Adjudicating Authority relied upon the judgment of this Hon'ble Tribunal in the matter of C. Shivakumar Reddy Vs. Dena Bank dated 18th December 2019 passed in Company Appeal (AT)(Ins.) No. 407 of 2019 at para 11 held as under: "Admittedly, the 'Corporate Debtor' the defaulted in making payments on 20th September, 2013 and the Dena Bank declared the account as NPA on 31st December, 2013. Therefore, we hold that the application filed under Section 7 of the I&B Code by the Bank is barred by limitation." 13. We are of the opinion that the Application filed by the Appellant, is hit by Article 137 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d as under "Proposing for One Time Settlement with banks with a payment in 6 quarters". The Learned Counsel for the Appellant strongly relied upon, the above statement of the Respondent, that since the Respondent had given a One Time Settlement Proposal on 19th June 2015. Therefore, it is a clear acknowledgement by the Respondent regarding debt. We have gone through the said documents annexed as A-6 at page 143 with the heading as viz:- "Note for the JLM to be held on 19.06.2015 at State Bank of India, SAMB, Khairatabad". From the perusal of the document, it is clear that at page 147 of the Note for the JLM, it is stated as corrective action plan at Bullet Point No.5 from the top. There is a mention that proposing for One Time Settlement to....