TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 528
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (hereinafter referred to as 'The Code'). 2. By the Impugned Order, the Adjudicating Authority has admitted the Application filed under Section 7 of the Code observing that in the Balance Sheet for the year ending 31/03/2017, there is a mention of outstanding Non-Convertible Debentures of Rs. 5,00,000/- having a face value of Rs. 100/- each; that the Financial Year ending 31/03/2019 specified the details of debentures issued by UTI along with the fact that the same was recalled in the FY 2002-03. In the Impugned Order, there is a specific finding that there has been 'acknowledgement of debt' as contemplated under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, keeping in view the Financial Statements of the 'Corporate Debtor' filed with the RoC till 31/03/2019. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant strenuously contended that the UTI advanced Financial Assistance to the 'Corporate Debtor' in the form of subscription of Rs. 5,00,000/- Secured Redeemable Non-Convertible Debentures of face value of Rs. 100/- each along with interest and charges payable under the Financial Facility. The sanction letter dated 16/02/1998, the letter of modific....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 'Corporate Debtor' could not pay/settle the actual dues of Rs. 7,77,39,275/-. 7. As against this argument, Learned Counsel for the Respondent/'Financial Creditor' contended that the 'Corporate Debtor' had consistently acknowledged the dues which evidences the jural relationship between the 'Financial Creditor' and the 'Corporate Debtor' and therefore satisfies the essential ingredients contemplated under Section 7 Application in terms of the 'debt' and 'default' having been established. Regarding the submission of the Appellant Counsel that the exaggerated claim of Rs. 96,00,00,000/- ought not to be considered, Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the default was in the year 2002 and 20 years has lapsed and drew our attention to the Statement of Account (exhibit E) filed with their Reply which shows the 'interest' element together with the 'penal interest dues' which has compounded to Rs. 96,00,00,000/-. The assignment of debt of UTI to the first Respondent is in 2003 and the 'Corporate Debtor' is not the part of the Agreement and therefore cannot state that such an assignment construes a 'settlement'. 8. The main point for consideration in this Appeal is whether ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....required to be filed within the period of limitation prescribed by law, which in this case would be three years from the date of default by virtue of Section 238A of the IBC read with Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, the delay in filing a Petition in the NCLT is condonable under Section 5 of the Limitation Act unlike delay in filing a suit. Furthermore, as observed above Section 14 and 18 of the Limitation Act are also applicable to proceedings under the IBC. 139. Section 18 of the Limitation Act cannot also be construed with pedantic rigidity in relation to proceedings under the IBC. This Court sees no reason why an offer of One Time Settlement of a live claim, made within the period of limitation, should not also be construed as an acknowledgment to attract Section 18 of the Limitation Act. In Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave (supra) cited by Mr. Shivshankar, this Court had no occasion to consider any proposal for one time settlement. Be that as it may, the Balance Sheets and Financial Statements of the Corporate Debtor for 2016-2017, as observed above, constitute acknowledgement of liability which extended the limitation by three years, apart from the fact that a Ce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the assignment it is stated that an amount of Rs. 79,66,21,750/- is 'due and payable' by the 'Corporate Debtor'. Be that as it may, it is not within the domain of the Adjudicating Authority to decide the 'amount of debt' at the stage of admission of Section 7 Application. 12. Now we address to the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that interest does not appear in the Balance Sheet and that the dues ought to be Rs. 7,77,00,00,000/- and not Rs. 96,00,00,000/- and that the 'Corporate Debtor' is being forced into IBC on account of the highly inflated claims raised by the 'Financial Creditors'. It is the contention of the Appellant that the debt amount is not the amount as shown in the form. However, on mere dispute of the quantum of the amount, the Application under Section 7 cannot be rejected. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'M/s. Innoventive Industries Ltd.' Vs. 'ICICI & Anr.', (2018) 1 SCC 407, observed the definition of 'Claim' and held that even if right of payment is disputed, the Code gets triggered the moment, the default exceeds the threshold amount. At this juncture, it is relevant to reproduce paras 27, 28 & 30 of the 'M/s. Innoventive Industries Ltd.' (S....