Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.30 seconds)Section 7 in The Companies Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Shahi Exports Pvt Ltd & Another vs Cmd Buildtech Pvt Ltd on 10 July, 2013
[Shahi Exports (P) Ltd. v. CMD Buildtech (P) Ltd., 2013
SCC OnLine Del 2535: (2013) 202 DLT 735] this Court
held as follows:
Asset Reconstruction Company (India) ... vs Bishal Jaiswal on 15 April, 2021
27. Thus, in Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd. vs. Bishal Jaiswal,
(2021) 6 SCC 366, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the question of
applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act on IBC is no longer res
Integra as two recent judgments (Sesh Nath Singh v. Baidyabati
Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd.,(2021)ibclaw.in 49 SC, decided on
22.03.2021 and Laxmi Pat Surana v. Union Bank of India (2021)
ibclaw.in 53 SC, decided on 26.03.2021) have applied the provisions of
Section 14 and Section 18 of the Limitation Act to the IBC and that an
entry made in the books of accounts, including the balance sheet, can
amount to an acknowledgement of liability within the meaning of Section 18
of the Limitation Act.
Laxmi Pat Surana vs Union Bank Of India on 26 March, 2021
27. Thus, in Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd. vs. Bishal Jaiswal,
(2021) 6 SCC 366, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the question of
applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act on IBC is no longer res
Integra as two recent judgments (Sesh Nath Singh v. Baidyabati
Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd.,(2021)ibclaw.in 49 SC, decided on
22.03.2021 and Laxmi Pat Surana v. Union Bank of India (2021)
ibclaw.in 53 SC, decided on 26.03.2021) have applied the provisions of
Section 14 and Section 18 of the Limitation Act to the IBC and that an
entry made in the books of accounts, including the balance sheet, can
amount to an acknowledgement of liability within the meaning of Section 18
of the Limitation Act.
Syndicate Bank vs Channaveerappa Beleri & Ors on 10 April, 2006
"24. The scheme of I&B Code clearly indicate that
both the Principal Borrower and the Guarantor
become liable to pay the amount when the default is
committed. When default is committed by the
Principal Borrower the amount becomes due not only
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 2157, 2158 of 2024 9 of15
against the Principal Borrower but also against the
Corporate Guarantor, which is the scheme of the I&B
Code. When we read with as is delineated by Section
3(11) of the Code, debt becomes due both on Principal
Borrower and the Guarantor, as noted above. The
definition of default under Section 3(12) in addition
to expression 'due' occurring in Section 3(11) uses
two additional expressions i.e. "payable" and "is not
paid by the debtor or corporate debtor". The
expression 'is not paid by the debtor' has to be given some
meaning. As laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
"Syndicate Bank vs. Channaveerappa Beleri & Ors."
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 8 vs Shree Vardhman Overseas Ltd. on 20 February, 2020
In CIT v. Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd. [CIT v. Shri
Vardhman Overseas Ltd., 2011 SCC OnLine Del 5599:
Mahabir Cold Storage vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patna on 7 December, 1990
(Mahabir Cold Storage case (Mahabir Cold Storage v.
CIT, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 402], SCC p. 409, para 12)
'12. The entries in the books of accounts of the appellant
would amount to an acknowledgment of the liability to
Messrs. Prayagchand Hanum anm al within the
meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and
extend the period of limitation for the discharge of the
liability as debt.'
In several judgments of this Court, this legal position
has been accepted.