TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 393
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eferred to as "IBC, 2016") read with Rules 11, 13, 14 & 15 of NCLT Rules, 2016 seeking reliefs as follows:- a) set aside the rejection of the Respondent dated 19.08.2020 and direct the Respondent to accept the claim of the Applicant; and b) For such further and other reliefs as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Learned Counsel for Applicant submitted that the Applicant is a co-owner of the property viz., M/s. Rasu Kumaki comprising of the entire building consisting of Basement, Ground Floor, Mezzanine, First Floor, Second Floor with super built up area of approximately 39,000 Sq. ft. and carpet area approximately 34,000 Sq. ft. with two lifts at No. 389, Khatha No. 965....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o submitted that on 08.07.2014, the Applicant has received an e-mail from the Corporate Debtor stating that they vacated the premises and that they would arrange for payment of the balance rent which is due and payable. Subsequently, it was submitted that the Corporate Debtor has issued a cheque in favour of the Applicant, however, the same was returned with an endorsement "Insufficient Funds" and that the same was communicated to the Corporate Debtor. It was replied vide e-mail dated 09.09.2014 that the account of the Corporate Debtor was temporarily suspended since there was a lien/attachment on the account of the Corporate Debtor by the MP VAT authorities. 7. It was further submitted that Corporate Debtor has guaranteed that the suspe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gistered compulsorily and therefore the claim based upon unregistered document, is not admissible. 10. Further it was submitted by Learned Counsel for Respondent that the claim of the Applicant from March 2013 till July 2014 are categorically barred by limitation since there was no communication from the year 2014 in respect of the rent arrears which is allegedly payable by the Corporate Debtor to the Applicant herein. 11. Further it was submitted that the claim for damages of Rs. 20 lakh as stated by the Applicant in the Application is not supported by any documents of evidentiary value. Under such circumstances, the Respondent has sought for dismissal of the present Application. 12. Heard the submissions made by the parties. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aim (which is required when there is no acknowledgment of Debt) is not attached. Hence, for the above reasons the Claim is not admitted, so stands rejected which please note. 14. It is seen that the claim submitted by the Applicant relates to the dues which is payable for the period from April 2013 till July 2014. Perusal of the claim Form i.e., Form F filed before the IRP by the Applicant manifests the fact that the Applicant has placed on record the following four documents in order to substantiate his claim as follows:- (i). Lease Agreement dated 07.08.2007; (ii). Acknowledgement dated 21.08.2014 to pay damages; (iii). Summary sheet of calculation of claim; and (iv). E-mail acknowledgement ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g into effect). At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to the Report of the Insolvency Law Committee of March, 2018 in this regard and more particularly paragraph 28.1 to 28.3 of the said Report and highlighting that the Code (IBC, 2016) could not have been to give a new lease of life to debts which are time barred and have thereby gone to give a finding by taking into consideration the above noted Report that the Limitation Act is applicable from the inception of the Code. A portion of the Report which has been extracted by the Hon'ble Apex Court reads as follows:- 28.2 Further, non-application of the law on limitation creates the following problems : first, it re-opens the right of financial and operational creditors hold....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emedy". (emphasis by underline supplied) * presently on and from 24.03.2020 Rs. 1 Crore 18. The above paragraphs of the Report of the Insolvency Law Committee of March 2018 has been favourably noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in B.K. Educational Services (Supra) case. The above paragraphs more particularly Paragraph 28.2 bring to light the intention for applying the Provisions of Limitation Act is not only confined with respect to the Petitions filed under Section 7 or Section 9 of IBC, 2016 by the Creditors but equally applies in relation to claims that may be preferred before the IRP/RP during the process of CIRP. It is to be noted that the entire CIRP is a time bound process, for that matter even IBC, ....