TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1806
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....09.2025 by which order, adjudicating authority admitted Section 7 application filed by the Tata Capital Limited. 3. The application was filed by Tata Capital Ltd. alleging default by the corporate debtor. The amount of debt granted to the corporate debtor was Rs. 25 crore. In Part IV of the application the amount disbursed and other details have been pleaded. Total amount claim was Rs.19,23,29,846/- as on 07.12.2024. The adjudicating authority after hearing the parties framed relevant issues and by impugned order admitting Section 7 application. 4. Challenging the order, counsel for the appellant contends that the date of default as mentioned in Part IV is 05.09.2024 and on 05.09.2024 the only instalment due was of Rs.41 lakhs which w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....corporate debtor again defaulted for the instalment due to October & November and default is continuing. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that default has to be treated only of default as on 05.09.2024. The adjudicating authority in the impugned order has also noticed the date of default and has also noticed the recall notice which was issued on 11.11.2024 before filing the petition on 31.12.2024 which observations have been made in paragraph 5 of the order which is as follows: "5. Indubitably, the instalment due as on 05.09.2024 was not paid. It is also clear from the definition of default given in IBC (ibid), once a default is committed in payment of any instalment, the same would be in respect of the entire amount....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted. Judgments of courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark on lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton (1951 AC 737: (1951) 2 All ER 1 (HL)] (AC at p. 761), Lord Mac Dermott observed: (All ER p. 14 C-D) "The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima verba of Willes, J., as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cardozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive." * * * "Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it." 9. When we look into column 2 of Part IV, there is a clear pleading of defaul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f overdue instalments, constitutes an Event of Default under Clause 14 of the Master Conditions read with Clause 12 of the Loan Agreement. In view of the aforesaid Event of Defaults, as a Consequence of Event of Default, as per Clause 15 of the Master Conditions read with Loan Agreement, TCL is entitled to recall the Term Loan. Accordingly, the Corporate Debtor along with Guarantors were called upon to repay the entire due and outstanding amount Rs. 19,08,06,176/- (Rupees Nineteen Crore Eight Lakhs Six Thousand One Hundred Seventy-Six Only) as on 11.11.2024 along with accrued interest and default interest A True copy of the Loan Recall Notice dated 11.11.2024 in annexed herewith and marked as Annexure 28." 10. Counsel for the appellant s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udicating Authority has on its own held that the arbitral award gave rise to a fresh cause of action and a fresh period of limitation even while the date of default remained unchanged from what was declared as 12.11.2018 in Part-IV of the Section 7 application by the Respondent No.1. 22. From a reading of the above-quoted paragraphs of the Bishal Jaiswal judgment supra, it is clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not allow the date of default to be amended merely on the basis of oral arguments. For extending the period of limitation, the concerned parties were directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court to necessarily amend their pleadings. Once the Section 7 application is filed, the date of default in Part-IV becomes binding. We howeve....