TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1566
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0.2012. ii. The appellant carried out work for National Institute of Occupational Health, Ahmedabad under work order issued by respondent No. 1. The work was completed by the appellant and the work completion certificate dated 15.01.2016 was issued in favour of the appellant. iii. Appellant issued a demand notice dated 23.12.2019 claiming an outstanding amount of Rs.3,65,75,820/-. Appellant filed a Section 9 application on 20.02.2020 claiming an amount of Rs.3,65,75,820/-. iv. The corporate debtor filed a counter affidavit denying the claim. Corporate debtor in the reply pleaded that amount against the work done has been paid. It was pleaded that 23 work orders were given to the appellant. It was further pleaded that application is barred by limitation. It was pleaded that no amount is due except the security amount of Rs.36,14,500/- which is withheld by NIOH Ahmedabad which shall be released after amount is received from NIOH. v. Rejoinder affidavit was filed by the operational creditor. vi. Adjudicating by the impugned order has dismissed the application filed under Section 9 as bar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondent along with its reply affidavit. Part IV of the application amount claimed and date of default is mentioned as 15.01.2016. Part IV, Column 2 of the Section 9 application is as follows : "PART - IV PARTICULARS OF OPERATIONAL DEBT 2 Amount Claimed to be in default and the date on which the default occurred. Rs. 3,65,75,820/- (Three Crore Sixty Five Lakh Seventy Five Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty) which is due as principal amount and Rs 3,45,83,690/- (Three Crore Forty Five Lakh Eighty Three Thousand Six Hundred Ninety) as Interest @ 24% p.a Simple Interest till 23^rd December, 2019 for the work done on credit basis. The default on payment occurred on 15th Jan, 2016. When completion certificate for the work done was granted to operational creditor." 8. In Section 9 application under Part V, Column 7, following has been stated: 9. "PART - V PARTICULARS OF OPERATIONAL DEBT (DOCUMENTS, RECORDS AND EVIDENCE OF DEFAULT) 7 Statement of Accounts where deposits are made or credits are received normally by the operational creditor in respect of the debt of the corporate debtor. Bank statement from 04.09.2012 till 17.06.2016 from Canara Bank, Lajpat Naga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nditions were essential for extending the benefit of Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 they are: (i) payment must be made within the prescribed period of limitation; (ii) and it must be acknowledged by some form of writing either in handwriting of payer himself or signed by him. Following was laid down in paragraph 16 of the judgment: "16. We may notice the judgment of this Court dealing with Section 20 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which was akin to present Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In Sant Lal Mahton v. Kamla Prasad [Sant Lal Mahton v. Kamla Prasad, 1951 SCC 1008 : AIR 1951 SC 477], this Court held that for applicability of Section 20 of the Limitation Act, 1908, two conditions were essential that the payment must be made within the prescribed period of limitation and it must be acknowledged by some form of writing either in the handwriting of the payer himself or signed by him. This Court further held that for claiming benefit of exemption under Section 20, there has to be pleading and proof. In paras 9 and 10, the following has been laid down : (AIR p. 479) "9. It would be clear, we think, from the language of Section 20, Limitation Act, that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to revive a right of action which was dead at the date of the suit. To claim exemption under Section 20, Limitation Act the plaintiff must be in a position to allege and prove not only that there was payment of interest on a debt or part- payment of the principal, but that such payment had been acknowledged in writing in the manner contemplated by that section." 14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case had also occasion to observe that there need to be specific pleading claiming for benefit of Section 19. In the said case, the Court held that even without pleading all facts for claiming start of fresh period of limitation, plaintiff is not entitled for benefit of Section 19. In paragraph 20 of the judgment, following has been laid down: "20. The judgment of this Court in Jiwanlal Achariya [Jiwanlal Achariya v. Rameshwarlal Agarwalla, AIR 1967 SC 1118] does not lay down that even without pleading all facts for claiming start of fresh period of limitation, the plaintiff is entitled for the benefit of Section 19. The next judgment relied on by Shri Singhvi is Kamla Devi [Kamla Devi v. Mani Lal Tewari, (1976) 4 SCC 818], in which case, this Court was considering Sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n basis of reply received from corporate debtor, where the said payment was accepted. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to paragraphs 6 & 10 of the reply to support his submission that there was admission for payment. Paragraphs 6 & 10 of the reply is as follows: "6. That the amount of work done by the applicant against each work-order was computed as per the measurement book which was checked and verified by the concerned officer against the estimated value of work-order and which was final and this ' final value' was never objected by the applicant/contractor and contrarily he continued to work against further work- order as such he is no estopped to raise any grievance to the final amount which has been settled and paid to him each financial year from year 2012 to 31.03.2017. 10. That it is respectfully submitted that the claim of the applicant is based on the total estimated value of distinct workorders/ contract although the amount paid to him is the actual value of the work done by him arrived after its measurement, thus the claim is wholly unfounded and frivolous and is denied by the respondent no. 1. It is categorically stated that no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant for purposes of carrying out contract cannot be held to be acknowledgment of debt by the corporate debtor. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Tribunal in 'Super Floorings Pvt. Ltd.' Vs. 'Napin Impex Ltd.' in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1928/2024. Above was the case where last payment was made on 26.08.2019 within period of three years and there was acknowledgement by the corporate debtor in writing which was reflected from the reply to the demand notice. In paragraph 24 of the judgment following was laid down : " 24. In the present case, last payment was admittedly made on 26.08.2019 i.e. within the period of three years and there is also acknowledgment by the Corporate Debtor in writing which is reflected from the reply to demand notice as noted above. When there is clear acknowledgment by the corporate debtor of last payment made on 26.08.2019 which payment was within the period of three years, we are of the view that the operational creditor was clearly entitled for the benefit of extension of limitation under Section 19 of the Limitation Act and both the conditions which are required to be fulfilled under Sect....