TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 1384
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Code"] by M/S Ramjee Power Construction Limited- the Operational Creditor for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [hereinafter referred to as "CIRP"] against M/S Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited- the Corporate Debtor on the basis of an arbitration award passed in favour of the Operational Creditor on 14.02.2008, claiming an amount of Rs. 32,06,54,395.75/-. 2. It is submitted by the Operational Creditor that the arbitration award was passed after disputes arose due to delayed payment on part of the Corporate Debtor and in terms of the work agreements, the dispute was referred to arbitration and the sole arbitrator passed an award in favour of the Operational Creditor on 14.02.2008. The Operational Creditor raised a bil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the claim of the Operational Creditor in 2010 and thereafter the Corporate Debtor challenged the award which was dismissed in the year 2018 hence the debt was not barred by limitation. 5. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that there is a pre-existing dispute and that the Corporate Debtor has filed Suit No. 435/2019 on 06.06.2019 before the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division)-1, Ranchi, the Corporate Debtor has filed a Supplementary affidavit wherein the plaint of the suit has been annexed. 6. On the point of parallel proceedings the Ld. Counsel for the Corporate Debtor has relied on paragraph 9 of an order passed by the Hon'ble NCLT, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Deem Roll-Tech Limited vs. R.L. Steel &EUR Energy Ltd. [Company Appl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AT)(Insolvency) No. 32 of 2017 that pendency of execution petition of an arbitral award is no bar to file a petition under IBC. 10. With regard to the point of limitation, it is seen that there are internal notings made by the Corporate Debtor in its office files which is being referred to and relied upon as an acknowledgment of debt by the Operational Creditor. Even if the said document is taken as an acknowledgment for the purpose of section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the last noting is dated 02.12.2010. If the limitation is calculated on the basis of the said date, the limitation stopped running on 01.12.2013. Apart from the said office notings no other document has been filed that acknowledges the debt within the period of limitat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1. Further, the Operational Creditor has filed office notings of the Corproate Debtor as well as a cheque that was issued in 2016, The Operational Creditor has failed to show that there is a continuous chain of events without violating the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by an order in B.K. Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Parag Gupta and Associates, MANU/SC/1160/2018 has held that: Av application filed after the IBC came into force in 2016 cannot revive a debt which is no longer due as it is time- barred. The amendment of s. 238A would not serve its object unless it is construed as being retrospective. Otherwise, applications seeking to resurrect time-barred claims would have to be allowed, not b....