AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 539
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is stated to be Rs. 1,50,00,000/-, and the amount claimed to be in default is Rs. 2,21,13,263.76/- including interest @17%. The date of default is stated to be 01.02.2016. BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CASE 3. Samata Nagari Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Kopargaon is a Cooperative Credit Society registered under the Maharashtra State Co-operative Societies Act, 1912. 4. Yeshodeep Infrastructure Private Limited is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, Registration no. U45400MH20018PTC187337 dated 07.10.2008. 5. The Corporate Debtor approached the Petitioner for credit facilities i.e., Working Capital term Loan aggregating to Rs. 1,50,00,000/- for business expansion. The said facilities were sanctioned vide Sanction letter dated 15.12.2015 for a period of 3 years from the registration of the Mortgage Deed. 6. The Corporate Debtor has defaulted in the repayment of the credit facilities and interests thereon. 7. The Petitioner initiated legal action by filing a case on 07.09.2016 under Section 101 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,48,11,360/-. 8. Subsequently, the certificate for recovery U/s. 101 of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ashtra with respect to misappropriation of the monies by the Petitioner but the directors of the Petitioner induced false promises to withdraw the complaint. 18. The Working Capital term loan agreement has been executed on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 100/- which is insufficient as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958. As per the provisions of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 the stamp duty of 0.2% of the amount agreed in the contract has to be paid. REJOINDER BY THE PETITIONER: 19. The Petitioner submits that though the date of default is 01.02.2016. However, as reflected in the account statement maintained by the Petitioner as on the date of filing of the Petition, the last date of payment received by the Petitioner from the Corporate Debtor was of an amount of Rs. 12.43 lakhs on 31.03.2017 and the Petitioner is also in possession of a pay slip dated 31.03.2017 signed by Mrs. Jaya Garad, director of the Corporate Debtor. FINDINGS:- 20. The Petitioner, Samata Nagari Sahkari Patasanstha, Kopargaon (Samata), (Financial Creditor), is a Co-operative Credit Society registered under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 which accepts deposits from member....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed. Further, the explanation of this section mentions . (a) an acknowledgment may be sufficient though it omits to specify the exact nature of the property or right, or avers that the time for payment, delivery, performance or enjoyment has not yet come or is accompanied by a refusal to pay, deliver, perform or permit to enjoy, or is coupled with a claim to set-off, or is addressed to a person other than a person entitled to the property or right; (b) the word "signed" means signed either personally or by an agent duly authorised in this behalf; and (c) an application for the execution of a decree or order shall not be deemed to be an application in respect of any property or right. (Emphasis Supplied) 23. Regarding the applicability of Section 18 and 19 of The Limitation Act, 1963 in an Application filed u/s. 7 of the IBC, there are several Judgments passed by Hon'ble NCLAT and Hon'ble Supreme Court which clearly brings out that both Section 18 and 19 are applicable in deciding the issue of Limitation. The Bench notes that in the case of M.M. Ramachandran Vs. South ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tset in the letter that the Respondents have availed a consortium loan of Rs. 6 crores from Samata Nagarik Sahkari Patasanstha, Kopargaon (Samata) of which the present Petitioner's amount of Rs. 1.5 crores form a part. This, the Bench observes, is the acknowledgment of the debt and even though the specifics are not mentioned, but is a sufficient acknowledgment u/s. 18 of the Limitation Act. Besides, the Bench notes that the last payment received by the Petitioner from the Corporate Debtor was an amount of Rs. 12.43 lakhs on 31.03.2017. The Respondent does not deny this payment. However, it mentions that since it is not acknowledged in writing, signed by the person making payment and, therefore, as per the proviso of Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be covered u/s. 19. This bench observes that this contention of the Corporate Debtor is incorrect as a bank transfer of the amount has been made, a pay slip dated 31.03.2017 has been signed by Mrs. Jaya A Garad, a Director of the Corporate Debtor, and an amount of Rs. 12.43 lakhs has been debited from the Corporate Debtor's account. A copy of the same is as under: 26. Therefore, in view of the above, the Bench does ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....03.2019. Since the present Petition was filed on 09.03.2020 it is within the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 19 of the Limitation Act. This Bench also observe that the present Petition is also well covered under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which reads as under:- 19. Effect of payment on account of debt or of interest on legacy.--Where payment on account of a debt or of interest on a legacy is made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt or legacy or by his agent duly authorised in this behalf, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made: "Comment: to attract the provisions to the operations of this section, two conditions are essential, first the payment must be made within the prescribed period of limitation and secondly, it must be acknowledged by some form of writing, either in the handwriting of the payer himself or signed by him it is payment which really extends the period of limitation, but the payment has got to be proved in a particular way and a written or signed acknowledgment is the only proof of payment and oral testimony is excluded unless there is a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rincipal instrument only shall be chargeable with the duty prescribed in Schedule-I for the conveyance, development agreement mortgage or settlement, and each of the other instruments shall be chargeable with a duty of one hundred rupees instead of the duty (if any) prescribed for it in that Schedule. 2) . 3) . Provided that the duty chargeable on the instrument so determined shall be the highest duty which would be chargeable in respect of any of the said instruments employed. [Emphasis Supplies] 32. The Bench notes that in terms of Section 4 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 the principal document in the transaction is the mortgage deed which has been fully stamped by paying a stamp duty of Rs. 75,000/-. Therefore, the said loan agreement is chargeable with a duty of only Rs. 100/- and there is no deficiency in payment of stamp duty as alleged. 33. As a consequence, keeping the aforesaid facts in mind, it is found that the Petitioner has not received the outstanding Debt from the Respondent and that the formalities as prescribed under the Code have been completed by the Petitioner, we are of the conscientious view that this Petition deserves 'Admission'. 34. F....