AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant.
This appeal is against the order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Cuttack Bench) by which the Application filed under Section 7 by Indian Overseas Bank- Financial Creditor has been admitted. When the Appeal was taken, the Appellant made a statement that suspended management is taking steps to settle with the Financial Creditor. Recording the said statement, the appeal was adjourned. On 23.02.2023 the following order was passed:
“O R D E R
23.02.2023: Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that suspended management is taking steps to settle with the Financial Creditor. He seeks adjournment. Appeal is adjourned to 17.03.2023.
Subsequently, when the appeal was taken, this Tribunal passed the following order on 02.05.2023:
“O R D E R
02.05.2023: On the first day, when the appeal was taken up on 23.02.2023, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant made submission that suspended management was taking steps to settle with the Financial Creditor. Thereafter on 17.03.2023, the appeal was adjourned on the prayer of Ld. Counsel for the Appellant. Again on 10.04.2023, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant sought time which was granted and today Mr. Aishvary Vikram, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that settlement has not arrived. In such situation we are of the opinion that appellant is required to file a short affidavit indicating therein that though earlier adjournment was sought for settlement, till date settlement has not arrived. Such affidavit may be filed within a period of two weeks. Put up on 18.05.2023.
Today when the Appeal was taken, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that in spite of repeated information sent by the Appellant, there is no response and hence the Affidavit, as was directed, could not be filed. He however, submits that sequence of the events indicate that no settlement could be arrived with the Financial Creditor.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that by the order impugned the amendment Application filed by the Financial Creditor was also allowed permitting the amendment in the Application and there was no opportunity to the Appellant to respond to the amendment.
We have considered the submissions of the Counsel for the parties and perused the records. The only question which was raised before the Adjudicating Authority was regarding bar of limitation. The Adjudicating Authority has dealt the said issue in detail and it was held that the Application is not barred by time. NPA was declared on 30.06.2015 and the Application was filed on 05.09.2022. There were revival letters issued by the Corporate Debtor on 13.12.2016 and 18.06.2019. In view of the revival letters, it has been specifically held by Adjudicating Authority that application was not barred by time.
We are of the view that the Appellant has been rightly given benefit of Section 18 of the Limitation Act extending the limitation and hence we are of view that no error could be found in the decision of the Adjudicating Authority holding that the Application is not barred by time.
There is no merit in the Appeal. Appeal is dismissed.