ANALYSIS OF SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT IN THE MATTER OF BABU LAL VARDHARJI GURJAR VS VEER GURJAR ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD & ANR.

Case Name	BABU LAL VARDHARJI GURJAR VS VEER GURJAR ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD & ANR. Case Citation – 6347 of 2019
Corporate Debtor	Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Pvt Ltd
Appellant	Babu Lal Vardharji Gurjar
Respondent	Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd & Anr.
Respondent No. 2	JM Financial Assets Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd.
Date of Judgement	14th August,2020

ISSUE OF THE CASE

Whether the application made by respondent under Section 7 of the Code is within limitation ?

FACTS OF THE CASE

On 22.12.2007, the lender banks viz., Corporation Bank, Indian Overseas Bank and Bank of India sanctioned and extended various loans, advances and facilities to the corporate debtor. The corporate debtor executed various security documents in favour of the lender banks in the years 2008 and 2009, including those of equitable mortgage against the facilities obtained. The Corporation Bank proceeded to rephrase/enhance the facilities to the corporate debtor from time to time and lastly on 27.08.2010 where for, various additional security documents were executed by the corporate debtor. The corporate debtor having defaulted in payment of the amount due against such loans, advances and facilities, its account with Corporation Bank was classified as Non Performing Asset on 08.07.2011 and that with Indian Overseas Bank was classified as NPA on 05.08.2011. Then, on 15.11.2011, demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued by Indian Overseas Bank to the corporate debtor and its guarantors. These steps were followed up with recovery proceedings against the corporate debtor by the consortium of lenders and respondent No. 2 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to the Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993.

Even when the aforesaid proceedings were pending before DRT, on or about 21.03.2018, the respondent No. 2 moved an application before the Adjudicating Authority under Section 7 of the Code.

DECISION BY NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL (NCLT) ORDER DATED 09.08.2018

The Adjudicating Authority, dealt with the submissions of the parties and, while rejecting the objections of corporate debtor in relation to the frame of application and the correctness of loan accounts, the Hon’ble NCLT held that the applicant was entitled to initiate CIRP under Section 7 of the Code when there was a debt and there was default; and that being a statutory remedy available to the financial creditor, the corporate debtor cannot question its maintainability only for the applicant having adopted other proceedings under other enactments.

Accordingly, the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) admitted the application for consideration; passed necessary order of moratorium; and appointed the interim resolution professional.

DECISION BY NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (NCLAT) ORDER DATED 14.05.2019

In the impugned order dated 14.05.2019, the Appellate Tribunal has observed that the Code having come into force on 01.12.2016, the application made in the year 2018 is within limitation. The Appellate Tribunal stated  that mortgage security having been provided by the corporate debtor, the limitation period of twelve years is available for the claim made by the financial creditor as per Article 61 (b) of the Limitation Act, 1963 and hence, the application is within limitation. The substance of the relevant factual and background aspects, as emanating from the contents of the application under Section 7 moved by the respondent No. 2.

The Appellate Tribunal has rejected the plea of bar of limitation essentially on two major considerations:

1.      That the right to apply under Section 7 of the Code accrued to the respondent financial creditor only on 01.12.2016 when the Code came into force; and

2.      That the period of limitation for recovery of possession of the Mortgaged property is twelve years.

 DECISION BY SUPREME COURT

The application made by the respondent No. 2 under Section 7 of the Code in the month of March 2018, seeking initiation of CIRP in respect of the corporate debtor with specific assertion of the date of default as 08.07.2011, is clearly barred by limitation for having been filed much later than the period of three years from the date of default as stated in the application.

Also the observations in this judgment are relevant only in regard to the issue determined that the application under Section 7 of the Code is barred by limitation and not beyond. In other words, nothing in this judgment shall have bearing on any other proceeding that shall be dealt with on its own merits and in accordance with law.

CONCLUSION

The Court held that in view of the above, this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated and with the observations foregoing. The impugned orders dated 14.05.2019 as passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 549 of 2018 and dated 09.08.2018 as passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in CP(IB)-488/I&BP/MB/2018 are set aside; and the application made by the respondent No. 2 under Section 7 of the Code, seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in respect of respondent No. 1 is rejected for being barred by limitation. Consequently, all the proceedings undertaken in the said application under Section 7 of the Code, including appointment of IRP, stand annulled. No costs.

                                                            ***************

This Article has been Compiled by Richa Singh 

Disclaimer-

The contents of this article should not be construed as legal opinion. This article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. We expressly disclaim any financial or other responsibility arising due to any action taken by any person on the basis of this article.