Shankar Khandelwal Vs Omkara Asset Reconstruction Private Limited (NCLAT Delhi)
NCLAT Delhi held that the admission of the Claim by the Resolution Professional in the first CIRP against the Corporate Debtor constituted a valid acknowledgement. Accordingly, order of adjudicating authority confirmed and appeals dismissed.
Facts- These appeals are preferred by the erstwhile director of the Corporate Debtor challenging the Order of the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT), Jaipur, dated 22.01.2025 in C.P IB 94/7/JPR/2024, and C.P.93/7/JPR/2024 admitting two independent petitions for initiating CIRP IBC against the same financial creditor. The financial creditor appeared to have considered it fit to file two separate petitions under Sec.7 IBC for each of the two loans it had advanced.
Notably, before the Adjudicating Authority, the Corporate Debtor neither denied nor disputed either the debt or default, but defended the action on the ground that the debts were time barred. This defence was negatived by the Adjudicating Authority.
Conclusion- Held that the admission of the Claim by the RP in the first CIRP against the CD on 22.05.2022 constituted a valid acknowledgement and its subsequent updating on 21.02.2024 constituted the second acknowledgement, and if terminus a quo is reckoned from any of these dates, then both the petitions laid by the respondent are validly instituted as the debts are not time barred on the respective dates when they were so instituted. In view of the same, this tribunal does not find any need to consider the other modes of computation of limitation necessary. Thus, both these appeals are liable to be dismissed, and the Orders of the Adjudicating Authority dated 22.01.2025 are hereby confirmed.
