Supreme Court: Borrowers Retain Redemption Rights if Balance is Paid After Auction Deadline  ||  Supreme Court: Non-Confirmation of Seizure under Section 37A Impacts Adjudication Proceedings  ||  SC: Blacklisting After Contract Termination is Not Automatic and Needs Independent Review  ||  Grand Venice Fraud Case: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Satinder Singh Bhasin  ||  SC: Senior Employee Cannot Claim Same Lesser Penalty As Subordinate; Bank Manager's Dismissal Upheld  ||  Madras HC: Governor Must Follow Cabinet's Advice on Remission Decisions, Regardless of Personal View  ||  Kerala High Court: Entrepreneurs Must Be Protected From Baseless Protests to Boost Industrial Growth  ||  J&K&L High Court: Second FIR Valid if it Reveals a Broader Conspiracy; 'Test of Sameness' is Key  ||  Supreme Court: Expecting a Minor to Respond to a Public Court Notice is ‘Perverse’  ||  SC: Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Applies to S. 11 Arbitration Act, Barring Fresh Arbiration After Abandonment    

Thomas George vs. Union Bank Of India & Anr - (NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) (05 Apr 2021)

Provisions of Limitation Act would apply mutatis mutandis to proceedings under IBC in NCLT/NCLAT

MANU/NL/0132/2021

Insolvency

Present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Mr. Thomas George who is director of the suspended Board of the Corporate Debtor Mathstraman Manufacturers and Traders Pvt. Ltd. against the Impugned Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, National Company Law Tribunal. The Application under Section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) was filed by the Union Bank of India, (Erstwhile Corporation Bank which merged with it) against the Corporate Debtor.

In present Appeal, the Appellant claims that, the debt due and claimed before the Adjudicating Authority by the Bank was time-barred and thus, the Application should not have been admitted.

In Judgment in the matter of "Sesh Nath Singh & Anr. Vs. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-Operative Bank Ltd And Anr.", the Supreme Court has observed that, under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963,an acknowledgement of present subsisting liability, made in Company Appeal in writing in respect of any right claimed by the opposite party and signed by the party against whom the right is claimed, has the effect of commencing of a fresh period of limitation, from the date on which the acknowledgment is signed. However, the acknowledgment must be made before the period of limitation expires.

Further, as per the observation in said judgment, Section 238A of the IBC makes the provisions of the Limitation Act, as far as may be, applicable to proceedings before the NCLT and the NCLAT. The IBC does not exclude the application of Section 6 or 14 or 18 or any other provision of the Limitation Act to proceedings under the IBC in the NCLT/NCLAT. All the provisions of the Limitation Act are applicable to proceedings in the NCLT/NCLAT, to the extent feasible. The provisions of the Limitation Act would apply mutatis mutandis to proceedings under the IBC in the NCLT/NCLAT.

The documents on record referred by Learned Counsel for Bank show series of Acknowledgments of debts by Corporate Debtor since date of NPA which extend period of limitation if Section 18 of Limitation Act is considered. In view of Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, OTS Proposals and Settlement requests and balance sheet referred, present Tribunal do not find that the Application under Section 7 of IBC could be said to be barred by Limitation. There is no substance in the Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed.

Tags : LIMITATION ACT   PROVISIONS   APPLICABILITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved