NDLI: Babulal Vardharji Gurjar Vs. Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	2016 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code ss.7 and 238-A Limitation Act 1963s.18 and Art.137
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – ss.7 and 238-A –Limitation Act, 1963 – s.18 and Art.137 – On or about 22.12.2007,the Lender Banks sanctioned and extended various loans, advancesand facilities to the corporate debtor-respondent no.1 – Therespondent no.1 defaulted in payment of the amount due againstsuch loans, advances and facilities, its account was classified asNon-Performing Asset on 08.07.2011 – Recovery proceedingsagainst the corporate debtor by the consortium of lenders u/s.19 ofthe Recovery of Debts due to the Banks and Financial InstitutionAct, 1993 before the DRT was started – On or about 21.03.2018,the respondent no.2, while stating its capacity as the financialcreditor, for being the assignee of the loans and advances disbursedby the creditor Bank to the corporate debtor, filed an application u/s.7 of the Code before the Adjudicating Authority and soughtinitiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) inrespect of respondent no.1 – The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT)admitted the said application and initiated CIRP u/s.7 of the Code– Before the Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), the appellant-the directorof the respondent no.1 company contended that the claim was barredby time – However, the appeal was dismissed by the AppellateTribunal – Aggrieved, the appellant filed appeal before the SupremeCourt – The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the AppellateTribunal for deciding the issue of limitation with respect to theapplication u/s.7 of the Code – The Appellate Tribunal held that theright to apply u/s. 7 of the Code accrued only on 01.12.2016 i.e.when the Code came into force and hence, the application filed bythe Financial creditor in the year 2018 is not barred by limitation;and that the period of limitation is 12 years for recovery of possessionof the mortgaged property, therefore, the claim is not barred bylimitation – On appeal, held: The period of limitation for anapplication seeking initiation of CIRP u/s.7 of the Code is governedby Art.137 of the Limitation Act and is, therefore, three years fromthe date when right to apply accrues – In the instant case, theapplication made by the respondent no.2 u/s.7 of the Code in themonth of March 2018, seeking initiation of CIRP in respect of thecorporate debtor with specific assertion to the date of default as08.07.2011 is clearly barred by limitation for having filed muchlater than the period of three years from the date of default as statedin the application – The NCLT had not even examined the questionof limitation – Whereas, the NCLAT had decided the question oflimitation on entirely irrelevant considerations – There is nothing inthe Code to even remotely indicate if the period of limitation for thepurpose of an application u/s.7 is to commence from the date ofcommencement of the Code itself – The NCLAT proceeded only onassumption, without any foundation and without any basis – Further,the reasoning of the NCLAT that property being mortgaged, theperiod of limitation is of twelve years is again erroneous and donot stand in conformity with the dictum of the Supreme Court – Asin the B.K. Educational Service, it was held in no uncertain termsthat the limitation provided in Art.137 governs the application u/s.7 of the Code – Therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be setaside and the application filed by the respondent no.2 is rejectedas being barred by limitation.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
Neutral Citation	2020 INSC 490
Petitioner	Babulal Vardharji Gurjar
Respondent	Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
SCR	[2020] 13 S.C.R. 368
Judgement Date	2020-08-14
Case Number	6347

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Babulal Vardharji Gurjar Vs. Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Sagar Sharma & Anr. Vs. Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Punjab National Bank Vs. Mr. Vijay Sitaram Dandnaik & Anr.

Sandeep Khaitan, Resolution Professional for National Plywood Industries Ltd. Vs. Jsvm Plywood Industries Ltd. & Anr.

Rajratan Babulal Agarwal Vs. Solartex India Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.

M/s. Innoventive Industrles Ltd. Vs. Icici Bank & Anr.

Asset Reconstruction Company (india) Limited Vs. Tulip Star Hotels Limited & Ors.

Rahul Jain Vs. Rave Scans Pvt. Ltd. &

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs. A. Balakrishnan & Anr.

Indian Overseas Bank Vs. M/s Rcm Infrastructure Ltd. and Another

Babulal Vardharji Gurjar Vs. Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Babulal Vardharji Gurjar Vs. Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Sagar Sharma & Anr. Vs. Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Punjab National Bank Vs. Mr. Vijay Sitaram Dandnaik & Anr.

Sandeep Khaitan, Resolution Professional for National Plywood Industries Ltd. Vs. Jsvm Plywood Industries Ltd. & Anr.

Rajratan Babulal Agarwal Vs. Solartex India Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.

M/s. Innoventive Industrles Ltd. Vs. Icici Bank & Anr.

Asset Reconstruction Company (india) Limited Vs. Tulip Star Hotels Limited & Ors.

Rahul Jain Vs. Rave Scans Pvt. Ltd. &

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs. A. Balakrishnan & Anr.

Indian Overseas Bank Vs. M/s Rcm Infrastructure Ltd. and Another

Babulal Vardharji Gurjar Vs. Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.