TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 375
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as Learned Counsel for the Resolution Professional. 2. This Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 07.07.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Cuttack Bench) in I.A. No. 87/CB/2021 filed by the Appellant challenging the part rejection made by the Resolution Professional. 3. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noted for deciding this Appeal are:- The 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' (CIRP in short) against the R.K. Jain Construction (I) Pvt. Ltd. was initiated by the Order dated 03.10.2019. The Appellant filed a claim before the Resolution Professional of Rs. 3,04,58,814/-. Resolution Professional accepted partia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed as acknowledgement for extension of limitation and the claim of the Appellant could not have been stated to be barred by time. It is submitted that entire payment made by the Appellant is reflected in the accounts. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied on the Judgment of this Tribunal in "Arrow Engineering Ltd. Vs. Golden Tobacco Limited" [CA (AT) I No. 183 of 2021] decided on 02.12.2021 and also on the Judgement of "Asset Reconstruction Company (I) Ltd. Vs. Bishal Jaiswal & Anr." [2021 6 SCC 366]. 5. Learned Counsel for the Resolution Professional refuting the submissions of Learned Counsel for the Appellant, contends that the Adjudicating Authority has rightly come to the conclusion that entire claim was barred by time and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Applicant maintained in the books of the Corporate Debtor, the claim of the Applicant was accepted to an extent of Rs. 27,75,000/- (Rupees Twenty- Seven Lakhs Seventy-Five Thousand Only) as unsecured loan. It is submitted that acceptance of the said claim to an extent of Rs. 27,75,000/- was even informed to the Applicant vide email dated 18.12.2020 which is annexed in the Application as Annexure A/8 at Pg. No. 100." 8. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied on Judgement of this Tribunal in "Arrow Engineering Ltd." (supra) specifically paragraph 23 and 25 which is to the following effect: "23. Thus, even if 01.09.2012 is treated to be the date of default, the three years' period will be there till 31.08.2015 and there bei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as prescribed by Section 19 merely renews debt; it does not create a new right of action. It is a mere acknowledgement of the liability in respect of the right in question; it need not be accompanied by a promise to pay either expressly or even by implication. The statement on which a plea of acknowledgement is based must relate to a present subsisting liability though the exact nature or the specific character of the said liability may not be indicated in words. Words used in the acknowledgement must, however, indicate the existence of jural relationship between the parties such as that of debtor and creditor, and it must appear that the statement is made with the intention to admit such jural relationship. Such intention can be inferred b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Corporate Debtor. Thus, Section 18 is clearly attracted giving fresh period of limitation even in the event, we accept the submission of the Respondent that default was committed on 23 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 183 of 2021 01.09.2012. We, thus, are of the opinion that the Adjudicating Authority committed error in rejecting the Application filed by the Appellant under Section 7. The Appeal deserves to be allowed. The impugned judgment dated 25.01.2021 is set aside. We further direct the Adjudicating Authority to pass consequential orders including the order of Moratorium within one month from the date of copy of this order is produced before the Adjudicating Authority during which period it is always open to the parties to endeavor to....