2026 (4) TMI 1840

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for determination in these appeals are whether the application filed under Section 7 of the Code by the secured financial creditor was within the period of limitation. FACTS 3. The facts giving rise to the filing of these appeals, briefly stated, are that the appellant is the erstwhile Director of Shrinathji Business Ventures Private Limited and Samaria Business Ventures Private Limited (Corporate Debtors). Two separate loans were sanctioned by Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd., (DHFL) in September 2014 for sums of Rs. 12 crores and Rs.11 crores, out of which Rs. 11.50 crores and Rs. 11 crores respectively were disbursed. The corporate debtors defaulted in repayment, and on 06.12.2016, DHFL classified their accounts as Non-Performing Assets (NPA). Subsequently, DHFL itself entered CIRP pursuant to proceedings initiated by the Reserve Bank of India, and on 07.06.2021, a resolution plan submitted by Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd., (PCHFL) was approved by the NCLT, Mumbai. On 10.01.2021, PCHFL assigned the subject loans to Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., the secured financial creditor. 4. Following the termination of the earlier CIRP, the secured financia....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Ors., 1966 SCC OnLine SC 99; Valliamma Champaka Pillai v. Sivathanu Pillai & Ors., (1979) 4 SCC 429; Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. through authorised signatory v. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 531; Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka v. Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd., (2023) 10 SCC 545; China Development Bank v. Doha Bank Q.P.S.C. & Ors., (2025) 7 SCC 729; Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Kew Precision Parts Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., (2022) 9 SCC 364; Laxmi Pat Surana v. Union Bank of India & Anr., (2021) 8 SCC 481; Reliance Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. v. Hotel Poonja International Pvt. Ltd., (2021) 7 SCC 352; Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Hirakud Industrial Works Ltd. & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1554 and Expert Realty Professionals Pvt. Ltd. through Neeraj Gusain v. Logix Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. through RP Mr. Pawan Kumar Goyal & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1455.]. 8. Learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 1, on the other hand, submitted that the period of limitation would commence from 06.12.2017 i.e., upon expiry of the period prescribed under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(4) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enfo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Section 7 of the Code has to be reckoned from 06.12.2016 or 06.12.2017, (ii) whether the petition under Section 7 of the Code is within limitation, and (iii) whether an admission of debt by an IRP amounts to acknowledgment of liability under Section 18 of the 1963 Act. ANALYSIS 12. The relevant undisputed facts are reflected in the following chronology of events: Date Particulars 26.09.2014 Loan facility was sanctioned to the Corporate Debtors by DHFL. 06.12.2016 Loan Accounts of the Corporate Debtors were declared as an NPA. 06.02.2017 60 days as mandated under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, concluded. 03.12.2019 NCLAT admitted CIRP against DHFL 15.03.2020 Covid-19 extension of limitation period commenced. 07.06.2021 Resolution plan of PCHFL was approved by NCLT in CIRP of DHFL. 23.12.2021 NCLT admitted CIRP against the CD (first CIRP) and moratorium was imposed. 30.05.2022 Covid-19 extension of limitation period concludes. 10.01.2023 PCHFL assigned its debt of CD to Secured Financial Creditor. 29.07.2024 NCLT terminated first CIRP on the ground of fraudulent initiation of CIRP. 23.09.2024 The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tition under Section 7 was filed on 23.09.2024 which is well beyond the period of limitation. Accordingly, the second issue is answered. 16. The third issue pertains to legal character of the admission of a claim by the IRP/RP and whether such admission can be construed as admission of liability so as to extend the period of limitation under Section 18 of the 1963 Act. At the outset, it must be noted that scope and ambit of Section 18 of the 1963 Act are well-settled. For a writing to constitute a valid acknowledgment, it must be made by the party against whom the right is claimed, or by a person duly authorized on its behalf; it must be made before the expiration of the prescribed period of limitation; and, most importantly, it must evince a conscious and unequivocal intention to admit a subsisting jural relationship and an existing liability. A mere reference to a past transaction or a bald recital of a debt, without an intention to admit liability, would not suffice. The said principle has been authoritatively enunciated by this Court [Prabhakaran (supra); Tilak Ram (supra) and Valliamma (supra)]. The provisions of the Code and the Regulations were considered by this Court [S....