Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.24 seconds)Section 18 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002
M. Suresh Kumar Reddy vs Canara Bank on 11 May, 2023
In 'M. suresh Kumar Reddy vs Canara Bank and others, reported
in (2023)8 SCC 387', Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the issue
with regard to the admission of a petition under section 7 of the IBC, has
held as under: -
Section 4 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Tejas Khandhar vs Bank Of Baroda on 12 July, 2022
42. It is also submitted that although the account of the appellant was
classified as NPA on 30.09.2015 and the period of limitation would have
expired on 30.09.2018 however the period stood extended due to the
execution of the fresh working capital consortium agreement dated
01.03.2017 between the appellant and the consortium of banks and thus
the limitation period extended by 3 years till 01.03.2020 and thereafter
various OTS were proposed by the appellant on 06.12.2019, 28.01.2020,
26.02.2021, 18.03.2021, 15.05.2021, 17.03.2021, 07.12.2022, 24.01.2023,
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1980 of 2024 17 of38
06.05.2023, 06.05.2025, 19.05.2025 and 10.05.2025 therefore keeping in
view the fact that the acknowledgement of the debt has been made up to
10.05.2025 the application has been filed by the bank within the stipulated
time, as the limitation has extended by the acknowledgement of debt by the
appellant in terms of section 18 of the Limitation Act, Reliance in this regard
has been placed on 'Tejas Khandhar vs Bank of Baroda', CA (AT) (Ins) No.
371 of 2020 .
Innoventive Ventures Limited vs Dhinal Shah Liquidator Of Innoventive ... on 23 December, 2022
"9. We have given careful consideration to the
submissions. This Court in Innoventive Industries
Ltd. v. ICICI Bank [Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI
Bank, has explained the scope of Section 7. Paras 28 to
30 of the said decision read thus: (SCC pp. 438-39)
"28. When it comes to a financial creditor triggering the
process, Section 7 becomes relevant. Under the
Explanation to Section 7(1), a default is in respect of a
financial debt owed to any financial creditor of the
corporate debtor -- it need not be a debt owed to the
applicant financial creditor. Under Section 7(2), an
application is to be made under sub-section (1) in such
form and manner as is prescribed, which takes us to the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating
Authority) Rules, 2016. Under Rule 4, the application is
made by a financial creditor in Form 1 accompanied by
documents and records required therein.
M/S. Gvk Energy Limited vs Axis Bank Limited on 24 April, 2023
63. Another coordinate bench of this appellate tribunal, while considering
the identical issue in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 385 of 2022,
M/s. 'GVK Energy Ltd. and Anr. vs Axis Bank Limited and Anr.', decided
on 24.04.2023 held as under: -