AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 678
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plication was time-barred. The Adjudicating Authority heard both sides and by the Impugned Order dated 3rd March, 2020, inter alia after considering Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "A.V. Murthy Vs. B.S. Nagabasavanna" (2002) 2 SCC 642 considered the balance-sheets available on record and found that there were acknowledgments of debts under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and rejected the Application filed by the Corporate Debtor and admitted the Application under Section 7 of IBC. Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP in short) was thus started. Hence, the present Appeal by Director of the Suspended Board of Corporate Debtor. 2. In the Impugned Order, Adjudicating Authority considered the Application filed by the State Bank of India; contents of the format and the amount stated to be in default. The Corporate Debtor claimed in the C.A. No. 1161 of 2019 that date of default mentioned in the Application is on 01st January, 2014. The Corporate Debtor filed Reply in the Application to defend itself. The Copy of C.A. No. 1161 of 2019 is at Annexure A-8 (Page126) and the Reply with annexures before Adjudicating Authority which was filed by State Bank ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at Application under Section 7 was filed on 3rd October, 2018. Appellant is arguing that NPA declared is on 30.09.2012 and thus the Application was time-barred. According to the Appellant, in the Application under Section 7, the date of NPA mentioned was wrong and the Appellant had not relied on balance-sheet in the Application under Section 7. It is argued that the Application was thus defective and should have been rejected. According to the Appellant, the State Bank of India wrongly relied on One Time Settlement (OTS in short) issued by the Corporate Debtor on 20th January, 2017 and rejection of the same, to claim extension of period of limitation. Appellant claims that balance-sheet cannot be relied on for acknowledgment under Section 18. Reference is made to Judgment in the matter of "Swiss Ribbons Vs. Union of India" MANU/SC/0079/2019 to submit that Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that there is a shift in the legislative policy from the concept of "Inability to pay debts" to "Determination of default" and that IBC is not adversarial litigation but a beneficial legislation to put a dying Corporate Debtor back to its feet. It is argued that there is distinction between "Date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Limitation Act, the Appellant has argued that once time begins to run, no subsequent disability or inability to institute a suit or make an application stops the same. In answer to the query raised by this Tribunal at the time of arguments, Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act cannot be relied on as legislative policy has provided that there is shift to "date of default" from "inability to pay" and this date of default does not shift. That there is only one default recognised under IBC. It is argued that legislation excluded all other provisions of Limitation Act including Section 4 to 24 to file an Application under Section 7. Appellant claims that Section 238 (A) of IBC which was included subsequently states that the Limitation Act "as far as may be" applied thus the argument is that the intention to not to include Section 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act is there. That, date of default is material and thus section 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act must be said to be excluded. Referring to Judgment in the matter of "Babulal Vardharji Gurjar" (Supra), it is claimed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "the intention of the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to 24 of the Limitation Act cannot be excluded. Reference is also made to Judgment in the matter of "Jignesh Shah" (2019) 10 SCC 750 and Paragraph 21 in the said Judgment where it was observed that when time begins to run it can only be excluded in the manner provided in the Limitation Act and for example it was observed that an acknowledgment of liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act would certainly extend the limitation period, but a suit for recovery, which is a separate and independent proceeding distinct from remedy of winding up would, in no manner, impact the limitation. The Learned Counsel for the State Bank of India referred to other Judgments also where entries in balance-sheets and books of accounts have been held to be acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act by the Hon'ble High Courts as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 9. We have gone through the Judgments, specially of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which are being relied on by both the parties. Ref: Judgment of this Tribunal in "Rajendra Narottamdas Vs. Chandra Prakash" 10. We have earlier dealt with similar averments being made by the parties in present matter with regard to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....India in Judgment dated 11.10.2018 in the matter of B.K. Educational Services Vs. Parag Gupta - MANU/SC/1160/2018 where reference was made to the Report of Insolvency Law Committee and Paragraph 6 read as under: "6. Having heard the learned counsel for both sides, it is important to first set out the reason for the introduction of Section 238-A into the Code. This is to be found in the Report of the Insolvency Law Committee of March 2018, as follows: "28 APPLICATION OF LIMITATION ACT, 1963 28.1. The question of applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 (the Limitation Act) to the Code has been deliberated upon in several judgments of NCLT and NCLAT. The existing jurisprudence on this subject indicates that if a law is a complete code, then an express or necessary exclusion of the Limitation Act should be respected. In light of the confusion in this regard, the Committee deliberated on the issue and unanimously agreed that the intent of the Code could not have been to give a new lease of life to debts which are time-barred. It is settled law that when a debt is barred by time, the right to a remedy is time-barred. This requires being read with the definiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....applicable to applications filed under Sections 7 and 9 of the Code from the inception of the Code, Article 137 of the Limitation Act gets attracted. "The right to sue", therefore accrues when a default occurs. If the default has occurred over three years prior to the date of filing of the application, the application would be barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, save and except in those cases where, in the facts of the case, Section 5 of the Limitation Act may be applied to condone the delay in filing such application." (Emphasis supplied) 23.3. From the above it can be seen that there was no intention to give new lease of life to debts which are time-barred. Thus, the consideration is whether a given debt is time-barred. It is also clear from the above that for Applications under Section 7 of IBC the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that residuary Article 137 in the Third Division of Limitation Act dealing with "Applications" was the Article applicable. The Judgment shows that if there is delay in filing of Application one has to go to the Sections where Section 5 would apply. Section 5 would be relevant if an Application which is time-barred and extension....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ady seen that Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that to condone delay Section 5 will have to be applied. We need to see other sections now to consider whether the debt is not barred by Limitation considering the provisions as may be applicable. 23.10 This takes us to sections 4 to 24. Relevant for the present matter are Sections 18 and 19 which read as under: " 18: Effect of acknowledgement in writing: (1) Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgement of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed, or by any person through whom he derives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgement was so signed. (2) Where the writing containing the acknowledgement is undated, oral evidence may be given of the time when it was signed; but subject to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, oral evidence of its contents shall not be received. Explanation. - For the purposes of this Section,- (a)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aph 26 of our Judgment in "Rajendra Narottamdas" supra as under: "26. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant referring to Judgment in the matter of Jagdish Prasad Sharda referred (Supra.) of another bench of this Tribunal submitted that in that matter it was interpreted that even if the payments were made after the Account was declared NPA if the Account was not regularized benefit cannot be taken. It may be clarified that limitation issue is decided on facts and law both and it differs from case to case. In the instant case, when Bank declared NPA to recover dues, it moved DRT. If the Corporate Debtor made some payments, as a reasonable prudent person, Bank received the payments. Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is not subject to any qualification/exception that after Account is declared NPA, if the debtor makes payments on account of debt, the Section would not be applicable. The Adjudicating Authority found that there were not merely repayments but also Acknowledgments." Ref: Judgment of this Tribunal in "A. Balakrishnan Vrs. Kotak Mahindra" 12. In the matter of "A. Balakrishnan Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited & Anr." (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 140....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mitation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court accepted the submissions that the time of Limitation when it began running on 21.07.2011, the Application under Section 7 filed on 03.10.2017 was time-barred. Thus, it appears to us that the filing of OAs and pendency of the same did not extend the time for the Financial Creditor, in independent proceeding under IBC. 14. Then, there is Judgment in the matter of Jignesh Shah. Vs. Union of India (2019) SCC Online SC 1254. In Paragraph 4 of the Judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India initially referred to the controversy as was arising in the Writ Petition No. 455 of 2019. 14.1. Briefly the facts may be referred from the Judgment. What appears is that on 20th August, 2009 a Share Purchase Agreement was executed between Multi Commodity Exchange India Ltd. (MCX), Multi Commodity Stock Exchange Ltd. (MCX-SX) and IL&FS whereby IL&FS had agreed to purchase 442 lakh equity shares of MCX Stock Exchange Ltd. from MCX. Pursuant to the Agreement La-Fin Group Company of MCX issued "Letter of Undertaking" on 20th August, 2009 stating that La-Fin or its appointed nominees would offer to purchase from IL&FS the shares of MCX Stock Exchange ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cates for IL&FS the Hon'ble Supreme Court first adverted to the decision in the matter of B.K. Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Parag Gupta & Associates in which Section 238 A of the Code relating to the Limitation was considered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph 8 to 11 of the Judgment in the matter of Jignesh Shah Vs. Union of India reproduced portion from Judgment in the matter of B.K. Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. and after referring to the said Judgment observed in Paragraph 12 and 13 as under: "12. This Judgment clinches the issue in favour of the Petitioner/Appellant. With the introduction of Section 238 A into the Code, the provisions of the Limitation Act apply to applications made under the Code. Winding up Petitions filed before the Code came into force are now converted into petitions filed under the Code. What has, therefore, to be decided is whether the Winding up Petition, on the date that it was filed, is barred by lapse of time. If such petition is found to be time-barred, then Section 238 A of the Code will not give a new lease of life to such a time-barred petition. On the facts of this case, it is clear that as the Winding up Petition was filed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Limitation Act was time-barred and cannot be proceeded with any further. 15. It is quite clear from the above that although the suit was filed in time the Winding up Petition was beyond three years of the default and when such Winding up Petition was transferred in view of the Rules to the NCLT to convert the same into a proceeding under Section 7 of IBC, it was found that as the Winding up Petition itself was time-barred from the date of default, the same could not be proceeded further as Application under Section 7." 13. Further, we had discussed in our Judgment in the matter of "A. Balakrishnan" supra paragraphs 19 to 21 as under: "19. It has already been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that when there is default and the Account is classified as NPA the time would start running. When this is so, if filing of the suit or filing of OAs did not extend the time, the question is whether consequential issuing of Recovery Certificate would trigger a fresh cause of action for filing Application under Section 7 of IBC. Clearly this is not so keeping in view above Judgments. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 appears to be not properly reading the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in filing such application." 4. In order to get out of the clutches of para 27, it is urged that Section 23 of the Limitation Act would apply as a result of which Limitation would be saved in the present case. This contention is effectively answered by a judgment of three learned Judges of this Court in "Balkrishna Savalram Pujari and Others vs. Shree Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan& Others", [1959] supp. (2) S.C.R. 476. In this case, this Court held as follows: "... ... . In dealing with this argument it is necessary to bear in mind that S. 23 refers not to a continuing right but to a continuing wrong. It is the very essence of a continuing wrong that it is an act which creates a continuing source of injury and renders the doer of the act responsible and liable for the continuance of the said injury. If the wrongful act causes an injury which is complete, there is no continuing wrong even though the damage resulting from the act may continue. If, however, a wrongful act is of such a character that the injury caused by it itself continues then the act constitutes a continuing wrong. In this connection it is necessary to draw a distinction between the injury caused b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "would have begun ticking" as a result of the Limitation Act, Rights, as a result of which Limitation "would have begun ticking" were injured effectively and completely when Recovery Certificate was issued. This is what appears to us from reading the Judgment. 21. Earlier in the matter of Digamber Bhondwe Vs. JM Financial Asset Reconstruction in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1379 of 2019 also the Learned Counsel therein had claimed that the date of NPA was to be ignored and Limitation was to be counted from the date of Recovery Certificate for Section 7 of IBC. We had at that time gone into details and for reasons recorded concluded that we are unable to accept the submissions that date of NPA was to be ignored and Limitation was to be counted from the date of Recovery Certificate. Even now, for reasons recorded by us in the Judgment of Digamber Bhondwe Vs. JM Financial Asset Reconstruction, when we have revisited the Judgment in the matter of Vashdeo R Bhojwani Vs. Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Anr. we are unable to agree that the Judgment gives a fresh date to trigger Application under Section 7 of IBC." 14. In this regard, now we have the advantage of Judgment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y after the proceedings before the wrong forum terminate? Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the law on the subject and earlier Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and while dismissing the Appeal in Paragraphs 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 88 and 92 of the Judgment in the matter of "Sesh Nath Singh & Anr." (Supra) observed as under: "63. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not speak of any application. The Section enables the Court to admit an application or appeal if the applicant or the appellant, as the case may be, satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making the application and/or preferring the appeal, within the time prescribed. Although, it is the general practice to make a formal application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in order to enable the Court or Tribunal to weigh the sufficiency of the cause for the inability of the appellant/applicant to approach the Court/Tribunal within the time prescribed by limitation, there is no bar to exercise by the Court/Tribunal of its discretion to condone delay, in the absence of a formal application. 64. A plain reading of Section 5 of the Limitation Act makes it amply clear that, it is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
......................................... 88. An Adjudicating Authority under the IBC is not a substitute forum for a collection of debt in the sense it cannot reopen debts which are barred by law, or debts, recovery whereof have become time barred. The Adjudicating Authority does not resolve disputes, in the manner of suits, arbitrations and similar proceedings. However, the ultimate object of an application under Section 7 or 9 of the IBC is the realization of a 'debt' by invocation of the Insolvency Resolution Process. In any case, since the cause of action for initiation of an application, whether under Section 7 or under Section 9 of the IBC, is default on the part of the Corporate Debtor, and the provisions of the Limitation Act 1963, as far as may be, have been applied to proceedings under the IBC, there is no reason why Section 14 or 18 of the Limitation Act would not apply for the purpose of computation of the period of limitation. ........................................................................... 92. In other words, the provisions of the Limitation Act would apply mutatis mutandis to proceedings under the IBC in the NCLT/NCLAT. To quote Sha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 17 of the Judgement, it was observed:- "17. In the case before us, as rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, the assessee has not transferred the said amount from the creditors' account to its profit and loss account. The liability was shown in the balance sheet as on 31st March, 2002. The assessee being a limited company, this amounted to acknowledging the debts in favour of the creditors. Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides for effect of acknowledgement in writing. It says where before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgement of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed, a fresh period of limitation shall commence from the time when the acknowledgement was so signed. In an early case, in England, in Jones v. Bellgrove Properties, (1949) 2KB 700, it was held that a statement in a balance sheet of a company presented to a creditor- share holder of the company and duly signed by the directors constitutes an acknowledgement of the debt. In Mahabir Cold Storage v. CIT (1991) 188 ITR 91, the Supreme Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich led the Court to conclude that even the debt shown in the balance sheet in respect of the said petitioning creditor would not amount to an acknowledgement as contemplated under Section 18 of the Limitation Act and following observations in this regard are reported: "Therefore, in understanding the balance sheets and in explaining the statements in the balance- sheets, the balance-sheets together with the Directors' report must be taken together to find out the true meaning and purport of the statements. Counsel appearing for petitioning creditor contended that under the statute the balance sheet was a separate document and as such if there was unequivocal acknowledgement on the balance-sheet is a statutory document and perhaps is a separate document but the balance sheet not confirmed or passed by the shareholders at the appropriate meeting and in order to do so it must be accompanied by a report, if any, made by the Directors. Therefore, even though the balance sheet may be a separate document these two documents in the facts and circumstances of the case should be read together and should be construed together. 13. In the same breath, the High Court also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... before us, there does not appear to be any acknowledgement of debt. The statement recorded by the Auditor with regard to the pending litigation in the facts of the present matter, we find, cannot be read as an acknowledgement by Company under Section 18 of the Limitation Act." 19. In the above reference to our Judgement in the matter of "Gautam Sinha" while referring the Judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of "The Commissioner of Income Tax-III v. Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd." reported as 2011 SCC OnLine DEL 5599, only part of Para - 17* of that Judgement was reproduced. In Judgement in the matter of "Commissioner of Income Tax" (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi after referring to Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "M/s Mahabir Cold Storage Versus C.I.T." (supra) and the legal position in Para - 17, observed that in several Judgements of the High Court, the legal position has been accepted and added:- "In Daya Chand Uttam Prakash Jain vs. Santosh Devi Sharma 67 (1997) DLT 13, S.N. Kapoor J. applied the principle in a case where the primary question was whether a suit under Order 37 CPC could be filed on the basis of an acknowledgemen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AESI - in short) was mandatory or directory in nature and in the context, dealt with the matter where the Creditor had not replied to debtors' representation and it was claimed that there was breach of Section 13(3A). In that context, Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with attendant circumstances and the Notices which were issued by the Creditor and the different proposals debtor made including a "Letter of Undertaking" dated 25th November, 2013 and in Para - 35 of that Judgement observed:- Letter of Undertaking "Without Prejudice" 35. Much was sought to be made of the words "without prejudice" in the letter containing the undertaking that if the debt was not paid, the creditor could take over the secured assets. The submission on behalf of the debtor that the letter of undertaking was given in the course of negotiations and cannot be held to be an evidence of the acknowledgement of liability of the debtor, apart from being untenable in law, reiterates the attempt to evade liability and must be rejected. The submission that the letter was written without prejudice to the legal rights and remedies available under any law and therefore the acknowledgement or the undert....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pinion with regard to the liabilities shown to say that the same are barred by limitations and hence, the liabilities are not being confirmed by the Directors. Thus contents recorded in Balance Sheet/Financial Statements are to be looked into on case to case basis. 24. Apart from Judgements of the High Courts, as referred, Judgement in the matter of "Mahabir Cold Storage" (supra) recorded that entries in the books of accounts would amount to an acknowledgement of the liability within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. If books of accounts can be considered, we find it difficult to hold that the audited Balance Sheet prepared on the basis of books of accounts, need to be ignored. Apart from the above, in Judgement in the matter of "Kashinath Sankarappa Wani Vs. New Akot Cotton Ginning &; Pressing Co., Ltd." reported as MANU/SC/0007/1958, while dealing with Resolution of Board of Directors and while considering Balance Sheet with regard to question of limitation, Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the Resolution and also the Balance Sheet and in the context of the facts of that matter came to a conclusion that the Resolution or the Balance Sheet did not help the Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n that Annual Returns/Audited Balance Sheets, one-time settlement proposals, proposals to restructure loans, by whatever names called, cannot be simply ignored as debarred from consideration and in every given matter, it would be a question of applying the facts to the law and vice versa, to see whether or not the specific contents, spell out an acknowledgement under the Limitation Act. 29. As mentioned there are Judgments especially of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which show that entries in the Balance-sheet may amount to acknowledgment. We are bound by the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 30. Apart from the above, reference needs to be made to Section 29 of the Limitation Act which reads as under: "29 Savings (1) Nothing in this Act shall affect section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872). (2) Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estructure fails. We will give benefit to the Corporate Debtor by taking up the oldest date of NPA which is stated to be 30.09.2012 and treat is as date which will not shift. 33. Even if this date of 30.09.2012 as NPA is taken as the foundational date, on record there are balance-sheets for financial year ending 31st March, 2015 to 31st March, 2016. The State Bank of India had filed these copies along with its Reply (Annexure A-9 Page 132) as Annexure 4 and 5 of the said Reply. At page 160 of the Appeal, there is a balance-sheet for year ending 31st March, 2015 which document had been signed by the Director of the Corporate Debtor on 30.05.2015 (See Page 160). The entries at Page 167, 171 and 172 and the 167 read with 171 and 172 with regard to the long term borrowings and short term borrowing show amounts outstanding of the State Bank of India admitted in the balance-sheet. The short term borrowing has an endorsement with regard to the amount adding that it was secured by way of first charge of current assets of the Company. 34. There is similar document of balance-sheet at Page 181 (which was filed as Annexure R-5 of the Reply Annexure A9 before the Adjudicating Authority).....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....letter also contains a sentence that the Bank should consider the OTS "So that we can finalise the deal with potential investors for repayment of dues of all the lending banks under OTS". This document read with the rejection letter at Page 159 shows that the Bank in the context of this letter stated that OTS of 23 Crores was very low considering the principle plus interest outstanding. Thus, OTS was declined. Even keeping this document in mind, if one was to keep in view the balance- sheet for year ending 31st March, 2015 and consider this OTS proposal and perused the date of filing of Application under Section 7 of IBC, still the claim must be held within limitation. 37. We find that the Adjudicating Authority rightly relied on Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to consider the balance-sheets which were pointed out. 38. The main thrust of the argument of Learned Counsel for the Appellant has been that in the matter of "Swiss Ribbons" Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to the shift in the legislative policy and thus see date of default, simply calculate three years and hold the Application as time-barred unless there is Application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. The p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... further add the followings: i. The Appellant never denied the commercial credit information report (CIBIL) dated 18.08.2018 and the CIBIL report as filed by the Respondent alongwith its reply and is appearing at page No.107, 110 to 113 which also reflects the default and outstanding amount. The defaults for the different sanctioned amounts are varying which is as old as September, 2013 and as recent as December, 2018. The loans are carrying different sanction date and different loan expiry month / date. Outstanding amounts are varying from few lakhs to few crores as per report Order No.W-22011503 dated 18.08.2018 available at the above pages. In Form -1 filed by the Financial Creditor / Bank before the Adjudicating Authority at part -V Serial No.6 Financial Creditor/ Bank has mentioned about the CIBIL report of the corporate Debtor dated 18.08.2018 and at Serial No.7 they have provided copies of entries in bankers book in accordance with the Bankers Book Evidence Act, 1891. ii. On going through the Application filed by the Financial Creditor/ Bank before the Adjudicating Authority in Form 1 of part -IV, Serial No.1 reflects multiple types of loans with multiple d....