By Navya Bassi and Rhythm Goel, fourth-year students at NLU, Odisha

Introduction

Recently, the Mumbai bench of National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’) in Gokul Anilkumar v. Shailesh Bhalchandra held that claims that are time-barred can get revived by Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’). It laid down that even though remedy is restricted, right cannot be negated. The facts of this case were that CIRP was initiated against Maharashtra Theatres Private Limited, who was the  debtor. A claim was filed by Creditor alleging a financial debt arising out of a term loan facility of Rs. 55 crores.  An application was submitted by the suspended director of the debtor to dismiss the creditor’s claim contending that the debtor’s account was declared as a Non- Performing Asset (‘NPA’) prior to the date of default, rendering the claim to be barred by limitation. The bench addressed two pertinent questions- admissibility of claims that are barred by limitation and ‘one time settlement’ as an acknowledgement of liability to resume the limitation period . The author seeks to analyse whether the bench has gone a bit too far and deviated from well settled position of law.

Position Prior To This Judgement

The Report of the Insolvency Law Committee in March 2018 stated that the enforcement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) was not to suit the interests of the creditors who failed to exercise the available remedies under the pre- existing laws within the prescribed period.

In 2018, the Supreme Court (‘SC’) in the judgement of B.K. Educational Services Private Limited v. Parag Gupta relied on this report to derive the legislature’s intention of not giving an opportunity to present time- barred claims. It has been made explicitly clear by sections 7 and 9 of the IBC that the creditor can seek CIRP only for debts that have not crossed the limitation period.

As held by the SC in Andhra Pradesh Power Coordination Committee & Ors v. Lanco Kondapalli Power Limited & Ors., it was not the intention of the legislature to enable a creditor to revive dead claims through the route of the IBC. Section 3 defines debt as “a liability or obligation in respect of a claim which is due from any person and includes a financial debt and operational debt”. This was interpreted by the court as debts that are “due and payable” in law.

Section 238A of the IBC was inserted through an amendment to explicitly state that for any proceeding before the Adjudicating Authority, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 (‘Limitation Act’) shall be applicable to the proceedings. On the question of retrospective applicability, the SC in Thirmalai Chemicals Limited v. Union of India held that in essence, limitation is procedural and would be applied retrospectively.

The interpretation of section 18 of the Limitation Act has been a contentious issue. This provision stipulates that if there is a written acknowledgment of liability before the specified period lapses, a new limitation period starts from that acknowledgment. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Babulal Vardharji Gurjar v. Veer Gujjar Aluminium held that section 18 would not apply to applications for initiating insolvency proceedings under the IBC. National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT’) relied upon this contradictory decision for some time until clarity was provided in the case of Laxmi Pat Surana v. Union of India., wherein, the court affirmed that section 18 of the IBC should not be disregarded if circumstances necessitate its application. The court elucidated that if the debt or the responsibility to pay has been acknowledged by the principal borrower or the corporate debtor, new statute of limitations begins from the date of such acknowledgment, as long as it transpires before the expiration of the existing limitation periodTop of Form

Chaos Ensued

The order of the NCLT has gone beyond its jurisdiction  to create ambiguity with respect to the limitation period of claim under CIRP.

To justify its decision, the bench has cited two cases, both being irrelevant in the present context. One of these references was the judgement of the SC in Punjab National Bank and Ors. v Surendra Prasad Sinha.. The court in this case had held that due to limitation, only suit as a remedy is barred. The creditors’ right subsists till the debt is repaid, and thus, he can still exercise his right through an alternative remedy, i.e. balancing the payment through fixed deposit in this case.

The bench has relied upon this case to hold that claim under CIRP cannot be dismissed on the grounds that it is time constrained. Placing the two cases in juxtaposition, the claims in both are completely dissimilar to each other,  as the Punjab National Bank case pertains to a claim of  criminal breach of trust under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) where the issue was of creditor deducting money from the debtor’s bank account outside the limitation period. Even the remedy obtained in this case was not sought through IBC as money was simply deducted from the account after which the validity of the same was challenged before the court. The extract used from this case is “only exception in which the remedy also becomes barred by limitation is that right itself is destroyed.” However, the same judgement also goes on to say that the remedy to enforce the liability stands destroyed after period of limitation lapses. Which, however, is conveniently ignored by the court in the Gokul case.

Another case that has been referred by the bench is Sunil Kumar Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority & Ors. by reproducing the part of the order which reads as “The claim cannot be rejected because it is time- barred or claimed by an entity other than the financial creditor.” The bench has read the order in isolation, not being cognizant of the order in entirety which held the claim to be admissible only as it was within the ambit of limitation period. Moreover, the limitation period in question was of twelve years as it pertained to immovable property. This cannot be used as a justification for the present order as the limitation period had not lapsed in the cited case, but it is time-barred in the instant case.

These cited judgements hold no water as they are not in the context of initiating IBC proceedings outside the limitation period and only add to confusion of the legal fraternity.

Questions Left Unanswered

This judgement has encroached upon the already settled questions of law. section 60(6) of the IBC excludes the period of moratorium from the computation of limitation period under the Limitation Act. If the IBC’s intent were to operate in complete alienation of this Act, there would have been no need of incorporating this section in the first place.

This case particularly had a One Time Settlement (‘OTS’) wherein the debt was acknowledged by the member of the board of directors of the corporate debtor. As per Tejas Khandahar v. Bank of Baroda, OTS proposals come within the ambit of ‘acknowledgement of debt’ in consonance with section 18 of the Limitation Act.

However, there are certain loopholes in this judgement. Firstly, to what extent is it permissible to assess veracity of the claim when it already fails to meet the criteria provided under the Limitation Act? If this case is to be followed as a precedent by the courts, there will be no point in having an express provision in the first place that bars admissibility of such claims. Secondly, is this judgement phrased this way because of OTS as a recourse, or because the bench necessarily implies evaluating the merits of time-barred claims? An OTS has been repeatedly held as an acknowledgement of liability by the debtor and for the same, a fresh limitation period is permissible under law starting from the date of such an acknowledgement. However, the same is not true for the claims that do not have such a proposal in their agreements. This order fails to distinguish two such scenarios.

This position was settled by the SC until now. And a departure from the same requires coherent reasoning, which this particular judgement fails to deliver.  

Conclusion

Even with the laid down position of law in place, we see that NCLT diverges from the same to lay down its own interpretation of law in the case of Gokul Anilkumar v Shailesh Bhalchadra. NCLT’s decision to revive time-barred debts has led to confusion, citing case law irrelevant to the issues raised in this case. One of the cases cited by the Bench clearly bars the remedy of suit for falling outside of the limitation period, while the other has accepted the claim solely because it falls within the purview of the limitation. So, it is irrational to cite these cases to justify the decision of the bench

Prior to this order, both the legislative and judiciary seemed clear on the law that claims barred by limitation will not be admissible under the IBC, except in the cases wherein OTS proposals were incorporated. This judgement has the potential to open a pandora’s box of unanswered questions, particularly on assessing the veracity of time-barred claims.

Until there is further clarification or intervention with respect to this order and the law interpreted therein, the decision stands as a contentious point, leaving room for continued debate and potential future legal challenges.