National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): The Coram of Justice Venugopal M (Judicial Member) and V.P. Singh (Technical Member) while setting aside an appeal opined that
“…this Tribunal an irresistible, inevitable and inescapable conclusion that in respect of the loan account of the ‘Corporate Debtor’, there was an ‘Acknowledgement of Debt’ as per Section 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963”.
In the instant appeal, the Appellant was the Suspended Director of corporate debtor, controlling the majority of shareholding 100% of the paid-up capital of Saptarishi Hotels Private Limited (‘Corporate Debtor’) through its holding Company, Maha Hotels Projects Private Ltd. The appellant filed an appeal against the impugned order of the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad wherein the Tribunal had observed that the ‘Financial Creditor’ had established the ‘debt and default’ through various documents filed along with the Applications and ultimately, admitted the ‘Application’ by declaring the ‘Moratorium’ and issued necessary directions thereto. The counsel for the appellant contended that the adjudicating authority’ had no jurisdiction to admit the ‘Corporate Debtor’ for ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’ in spite of the fact the same being barred by ‘Limitation’.
The Tribunal while taking into account the ‘acknowledgment’ so rendered stated,
“…that Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not enjoin that an ‘acknowledgement’ has to be in any particular form or to be express. It must be borne in mind that an ‘acknowledgement’ is to be examined resting upon the attendant circumstances by an admission that the writer owes a ‘Debt’. No wonder, an ‘Unconditional Acknowledgement’ implies a promise to pay because that is the natural inference if there is no other contrary material”.
Further, to treat the writing signed by an individual as an ‘Acknowledgement’, the person acknowledging must be conscious of his liability and the commitment ought to be made in respect of that liability.
And considering the sum of Rs.15,262.75 was paid by the ‘Corporate Debtor’ after which the due amount was Rs 144,02,51,063.09, concluded that
“…this tribunal comes to an irresistible, inevitable and inescapable conclusion that in respect of the loan account of the ‘Corporate Debtor’, there was an ‘Acknowledgement of Debt’ as per Section 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963”.
[Lakshmi Narayan Sharma v. Punjab National Bank, 2021 SCC OnLine NCLAT 155, decided on 12-05-2021]
Counsels for the Parties:
For Appellant :
Mr. Rajashekar Rao, Sr. Advocate
For Mr. Suraj Prakash, Mrinal Lotoria, Advocates
For Respondents:
Shri T.Ravichandran, Advocate
Shri T.S.N.Raja, PCA
(Interim Resolution Professional)
