Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

20. It is next submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents that the application under Section 7 was not barred by limitation as the 'Corporate Debtor' has acknowledged the claim in its Audited Balance Sheet for the F.Y. 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 onwards.

21. The question as to whether reflection of debt in a Balance Sheet of the 'Corporate Debtor' prepared pursuant to Section 92 of the Companies Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.57 of 2020 Act, 2013 amounts to acknowledgment of debt fell for consideration before this Appellate Tribunal in "Sh. G Eswara Rao v. Stressed Assets Stabilisation Fund─ Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1097 of 2019". In the said case, this Appellate Tribunal by Judgment dated 7th February, 2020 noticed the provision of acknowledgment in writing under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and Section 92 of the Companies Act, 2013. This Appellate Tribunal also noticed the decree passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal to find out whether the same can be held to be acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and held:

8. The Judgement in the matter of "The Commissioner of Income Tax" (supra) was in the context of provisions of the Income Tax Act. In Para - 17 of the Judgement, it was observed:-

17. In the case before us, as rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, the assessee has not transferred the said amount from the creditors' account to its profit and loss account. The liability was shown in the balance sheet as on 31st March, 2002. The assessee being a limited company, this amounted to acknowledging the debts in favour of the creditors. Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides for effect of acknowledgement in writing. It says where before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgement of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed, a fresh period of limitation shall commence from the time when the acknowledgement was so signed. In an early case, in England, in Jones v.
- 17, observed that in several Judgements of the High Court, the legal position has been accepted and added:-
"In Daya Chand Uttam Prakash Jain vs. Santosh Devi Sharma 67 (1997) DLT 13, S.N. Kapoor J. applied the principle in a case where the primary question was whether a suit under Order 37 CPC could be filed on the basis of an acknowledgement. In Larsen & Tubro Ltd. v. Commercial Electric Works 67 (1997) DLT 387 a Single Judge of this Court observed that it is well settled that a balance sheet of a company, where the Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.57 of 2020 defendants had shown a particular amount as due to the plaintiff, would constitute an acknowledgement within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. In Rishi Pal Gupta v. S.J. Knitting & Finishing Mills Pvt. Ltd. 73 (1998) DLT 593, the same view was taken. The last two decisions were cited by Geeta Mittal, J. in S.C. Gupta v. Allied Beverages Company Pvt. Ltd. (decided on 30/4/2007) and it was held that the acknowledgement made by a company in its balance sheet has the effect of extending the period of limitation for the purposes of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. In Ambika Mills Ltd. Ahmedabad v. CIT Gujarat (1964) 54 ITR 167, it was further held that a debt shown in a balance sheet of a company amounts to an acknowledgement for the purpose of Section 19 of the Limitation Act and in order to be so, the balance sheet in which such acknowledgement is made need not be addressed to the creditors. In light of these authorities, it must be held that in the present case, the disclosure by the assessee company in its balance sheet as on 31st March, 2002 of the accounts of the sundry creditors amounts to an acknowledgement of the debts in their favour for the purposes of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. The assessee's liability to the creditors, thus, subsisted and did not cease nor was it remitted by the creditors. The liability was enforceable in a court of law."

16. For the above reasons, I am of the opinion that Annual Returns/Audited Balance Sheets, one time settlement proposals, proposals to restructure loans, by whatever names called, cannot be simply ignored as debarred from consideration and in every given matter, it would be a question of applying the facts to the law and vice versa, to see whether or not the specific contents, spell out an acknowledgement under the Limitation Act.

16. For such reasons, in my view, the present Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.57 of 2020 should be placed before the regular Bench to consider whether or not the audited Balance Sheets and OTS proposals referred would on facts read with the law, amount to acknowledgements, so as to save limitation.