Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

30. The objection regarding limitation has been negatived by the NCLT vide judgment dated 06.12.2019. It observed in paragraph 7 of its judgment as follows:

“7. It is seen from the evidence on record that not only the original borrower but also the Corporate Debtor admitted and acknowledged the debt time and again on 27.05.2015 (exhibit J­1) and 08.12.2018 (exhibit K). The Corporate Debtor replied the notice issued by the Bank clearly admitting the debt. We have gone through his reply to the notice. We hold that his reply is in form of admission of debt and nothing else. The Corporate Debtor contended that recovery proceeding is pending in Debt Recovery Tribunal, Kolkata against the Corporate Debtor. It cannot be said that debt become due and payable. We hold that it is admission of debt and his only defense is that it is yet to become due and payable. In this case, by virtue of guarantee in favour of the Bank, the Corporate Debtor undertook to clear loan of the original borrower in case original borrower commit default and it is duty of the Corporate Debtor to clear the outstanding. His defence is that debt is yet to become due is not sustainable.” (emphasis supplied)
‘28. Application of Limitation Act, 1963 28.1. The question of applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 (“the Limitation Act”) to the Code has been deliberated upon in several judgments of NCLT and NCLAT. The existing jurisprudence on this subject indicates that if a law is a complete code, then an express or necessary exclusion of the Limitation Act should be respected.31 In light of the confusion in this regard, the Committee deliberated on the issue and unanimously agreed that the intent of the Code could not have been to give a new lease of life to debts which are time­barred. It is settled law that when a debt is barred by time, the right to a remedy is time­barred.32 This requires being read with the definition of “debt” and “claim” in the Code.