Case: BABULAL VARDHARJI GURJAR Vs. VEER GURJAR ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES PVT LTD &amp; ANR.

2.1. The appellant Shri Babulal Vardhaji Gurjar has been the director of the respondent No. 1 company viz., Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Hereinafter also referred to as the corporate debtor.) On or about 21.03.2018, the respondent No. 2 JM Financial Assets Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd. (Hereinafter also referred to as the financial creditor.) , while stating its capacity as the financial creditor, for being the assignee of the loans and advances disbursed by creditor bank to the corporate debtor, filed the said application under Section 7 of the Code before the Adjudicating Authority and sought initiation of CIRP in respect of the respondent No. 1.2.2. After having considered the submissions on behalf of the financial creditor and the corporate debtor, the Adjudicating Authority, by its order dated 09.08.2018, admitted the application so made by the financial creditor and appointed an interim resolution professional (IRP for short.). Consequent to this order dated 09.08.2018, the corporate debtor (respondent No. 1) is now represented by the interim resolution professional.2.3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 09.08.2018, the appellant preferred an appeal before NCLAT and contended against maintainability of the application moved by the respondent No. 2. The appeal so filed by the appellant was summarily dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 17.09.2018. However, the order so passed by the Appellate Tribunal was not approved by this Court in the judgment dated 26.02.2019, passed in Civil Appeal No. 10710 of 2018, after finding that the issue relating to limitation, though raised, was not decided by the Appellate Tribunal. Hence, the matter was remanded to NCLAT for specifically dealing with the issue of limitation. After such remand, the Appellate Tribunal, by its impugned order dated 14.05.2019, has held that neither the application under Section 7 as made in this case is barred by limitation nor the claim of the respondent No. 2 is so barred and has, therefore, again dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the appellant has approached this Court over again by way of the instant appeal.3. In the impugned order dated 14.05.2019, the Appellate Tribunal has observed that the Code having come into force on 01.12.2016, the application made in the year 2018 is within limitation. The Appellate Tribunal has assigned another reason that mortgage security having been provided by the corporate debtor, the limitation period of twelve years is available for the claim made by the financial creditor as per Article 61 (b) of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Hereinafter, the Limitation Act, 1963 is also referred to as the Limitation Act) and hence, the application is within limitation.4. In this appeal, the order so passed by the Appellate Tribunal is in challenge.6.1. On or about 22.12.2007, the lender banks viz., Corporation Bank, Indian Overseas Bank and Bank of India sanctioned and extended various loans, advances and facilities to the corporate debtor viz., Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd., who was engaged in manufacturing of aluminium ingots from aluminium scrap. The corporate debtor executed various security documents in favour of the lender banks in the years 2008 and 2009, including those of equitable mortgage against the facilities so obtained. The Corporation Bank proceeded to rephase/enhance the facilities to the corporate debtor from time to time and lastly on 27.08.2010 wherefor, various additional security documents were executed by the corporate debtor. It has been asserted by the respondent No. 2 that the Corporation Bank had assigned to it the rights in relations to debts of the corporate debtor by way of Assignment Agreement dated 30.03.2013; and a deed of modification of charge over the assets of the corporate debtor was also executed on 26.04.2013.6.2. The corporate debtor having defaulted in payment of the amount due against such loans, advances and facilities, its account with Corporation Bank was classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA for short.) on 08.07.2011 and that with Indian Overseas Bank was classified as NPA on 05.08.2011. Then, on 15.11.2011, demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (Hereinafter also referred to as the SARFAESI Act.) was issued by Indian Overseas Bank to the corporate debtor and its guarantors. These steps were followed up with recovery proceedings against the corporate debtor by the consortium of lenders and respondent No. 2 in OA No. 172/2013 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad (DRT for short.) under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to the Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 (Hereinafter also referred to as the Act of 1993.) .6.3. Even when the aforesaid proceedings were pending before DRT, on or about 21.03.2018, the respondent No. 2 moved an application before the Adjudicating Authority under Section 7 of the Code, in Form 1 as provided in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 (Hereinafter also referred to as the Rules of 2016.) , for initiation of CIRP in relation to the corporate debtor while stating its own capacity as the financial creditor, for being the assignee of loans and advances disbursed by Corporation Bank to the corporate. Several details and particulars stated in the said application need not be recounted but, the particulars of amount claimed to be in default and the date when such default occurred, as stated in point No. 2 of Part III of the application, are relevant for the present purpose and could be usefully extracted as under :-. It may also be usefully indicated that Part-V of the application, drawn as per the format in Form 1, required the applicant to state the Particulars of Financial Debt [Documents, Records and Evidence ofDefault]. The applicant stated the particulars of various securities held, date of their creation etc., as also the particulars relating to the said O.A. No. 172 of 2013 before DRT and notices issued thereunder. In Point No. 5 of the said Part-V of the application, the applicant was required to attach the latest and complete copy of the financial contract reflecting all amendments and waivers to date . In this regard, again, various agreements for loan, promissory notes, tripartite agreements, consortium agreements and supplemental agreements were mentioned by the applicant. In Point No. 8, the applicant was required to give out other documents in order to prove the existence of financial debt, the amount and date of default. The contents on this Point No. 8 of Part-V of the application could be reproduced as under:-8.LIST OF OTHER DOCUMENTS ATTACHED TO THIS APPLICATION IN ORDER TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF FINANCIAL DEBT, THE AMOUNT AND DATE OF DEFAULTi. Registered notice dated 05.07.2011 issued by Indian Overseas Bank to the corporate debtor to repay the overdue amount. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit MM is the copy of said registered notice.ii. Demand notice dated 15.11.2011 issued under section 13 (2) of the Securitisation Act by Indian Overseas Bank being consortium leader. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit NN is the copy of said Demand notice.iii. Publication of Demand Notice issued in two newspaper i.e Business Standard and Saamna under the SARFEASI Act dated 28.12.2011. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit OO is the copy of said Paper Publication.iii. (sic). Objection to the Demand Notice and the reply to the said Objections by IOB dated 14.01.2012 and 21.01.2012 respectively. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit PP and Exhibit QQ is the copy of said objection and reply letter.v. Registered Assignment Agreement dated 30.03.2013 between Corporation Bank and (Financial Creditor thereby Corporation Bank assigned the debt due from Corporate debtor along with the underlying securities in favour of the Financial Creditor/ Applicant. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit RR is the copy of said Registered Assignment Agreement dated 30.03.2013 between Corporation Bank and Financial Creditor.6.5. The application so made by respondent no. 2 came to be registered as CP(IB)-488/I&BP/MB/2018 before the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT). On being noticed, the corporate debtor submitted its reply in opposition and raised various objections on the contents and frame of the application. It was also contended that various proceedings had been initiated with the sole aim of browbeating the corporate debtor and forcing it to pay the unrealistic claim of the applicant. With specific reference to the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, it was contended that as per the notice under Section 13 (2), the account of corporate debtor with Indian Overseas Bank was classified as NPA on 05.08.2011 but, it was not mentioned as to when the loan account with Corporation Bank was classified as NPA. The corporate debtor also contended that its loan account had not been properly maintained by the respective banks due to the defect in accounting system and it was clear that the claim was arbitrary, inflated and not recoverable. With reference to the proceedings pending before DRT in OA No. 172/2013, it was also contended that IBC would not apply to cases where the bank has approached DRT or has adopted the proceeding under the SARFAESI Act and, for this reason, the present proceedings were not maintainable before the Adjudicating Authority.6.6. The applicant financial creditor filed a rejoinder and refuted all the objections of the corporate debtor while asserting, inter alia, that the Corporation Bank declared the account of the corporate debtor as NPA on 08.07.2011 and this fact was mentioned in the demand notice issued under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, as sent by Indian Overseas Bank on behalf of the consortium of banks.Initiation order dated 09.08.20187. The Adjudicating Authority, in its order dated 09.08.2018, dealt with the submissions of the parties and, while rejecting the objections of corporate debtor in relation to the frame of application and the correctness of loan accounts, held that the applicant was entitled to initiate CIRP under Section 7 of the Code when there was a debt and there was default; and that being a statutory remedy available to the financial creditor, the corporate debtor cannot question its maintainability only for the applicant having adopted other proceedings under other enactments. As regards the question of debt and default, the NCLT, inter alia, observed and held as under:-16. The Corporate Debtor contended that demand notice issued under the SARFAESI Act, by Indian Overseas Bank does not contain the date of NPA of the loan of Corporation Bank. The petitioner in the rejoinder submitted that the date of NPA of Corporation Bank was mentioned as 08.07.2011 in the SARFAESI Notice. This Bench has gone through the SARFAESI Notice and the date of NPA of Corporation Bank is mentioned as 08.07.2011 at pg. no. 579. Hence this contention of the Corporate Debtor fails. Further the explanation to Section 7(1) of IB Code provides that a default includes a default in respect of a financial debt owed not only to the Applicant Financial Creditor but also to any other Financial Creditor of the Corporate Debtor. In view of admission of date of NPA of Indian Overseas Bank by the Petitioner in the reply this case squarely falls under the ambit of explanation to Section 7(1) of the Code which is a proof of debt and default of debt due to another Financial Creditor. This Petition can be admitted based on the reply filed by the Corporate Debtor.7.1. The Adjudicating Authority also referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank: (2018) 1 SCC 407  as regards the scheme of the Code and the requirements of Section 7 thereof and observed,-21…..The rational and reasoning which can be drawn from the above lines of the citations clearly indicate mainly two aspects and that is existence of debt and the default which the present facts of the case clearly demonstrate. So any amount of argument that deals with issues which are not pertinent and trivial to the main issues concerned does not or cannot come in the way of adjudication of the lis in favour of the Petitioners. The present facts of the case are fully and comprehensively covered by the wordings of the above citations.22. The above discussion clearly shows that there is a debt owed by the Corporate Debtor in favour of Corporation Bank and subsequently on assignment of the debts by the said bank to the Petitioner, the Corporate Debtor is liable to make the payment to the Petitioner. Further there is ample proof to come to the conclusion that the Corporate Debtor defaulted in making payment to Corporation Bank and thereafter to the assignor, the Petitioner herein.23. This Adjudicating Authority, on perusal of the documents filed by the Creditor, is of the view that the Corporate Debtor defaulted in repaying the loan availed and also placed the name of the Insolvency Resolution Professional to act as Interim Resolution Professional and there being no disciplinary proceedings pending against the proposed resolution professional, therefore the Application under sub-section (2) of section 7 is taken as complete….7.2. Accordingly, the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) admitted the application for consideration; passed necessary order of moratorium; and appointed the interim resolution professional.Previous round of proceedings in appeal8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 09.08.2018, the appellant, erstwhile director of the corporate debtor, approached the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 549 of 2018 under Section 61 of the Code, challenging admission of the application made by the respondent No. 2.8.1. The appeal so filed by the appellant was considered and summarily dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal by way of its order dated 17.09.2018. The Appellate Tribunal took note of the contention urged on behalf of the appellant that a petition under Section 19 of the Act of 1993 was pending before DRT wherein question had been raised as to whether the amount was payable to the assignee or not. As regards this, the Appellate Tribunal observed that initiation of CIRP cannot be annulled merely for pendency of a petition under Section 19 of the Act of 1993; and in terms of Section 14 of the Code, all such pending matters cannot proceed during the period of moratorium.8.2. It was also contended on behalf of the appellant that there was no debt payable. After noticing this contention, the Appellate Tribunal called upon the appellant to file an affidavit that no amount was received or the amount received had already been paid and therefore, there was no debt or default. In response, learned counsel for the appellant expressed inability to file any such affidavit for the reason that the corporate debtor had indeed availed the loan from the bank/s. After noticing this stand of the appellant, the Appellate Tribunal felt disinclined to interfere with the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority and hence, dismissed the appeal while observing as under:-2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that a petition under Section 19 of The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 is pending before Debt Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad. Wherein question has been raised is whether the amount is payable to the assignee or not.3. However, the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process cannot be annulled merely on the ground of pendency of a petition under Section 19 of The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. In fact in terms of Section 14 of I&B Code all such pending proceeding cannot proceed during the period of moratorium.4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant contended that there is no debt payable. However, when we asked the counsel to file an addition affidavit signed by the Appellant making specific statement that they have not received any amount or amount received has already been paid and therefore there is no debt or there is no default, it is informed by the counsel for the Appellant that such affidavit cannot be filed by the Appellant as the Corporate Debtor had taken loan from the Bank.5. In view of the aforesaid stand taken by Appellant, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 9th August, 2018. In absence of any merit, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 17.09.2018, the appellant approached this Court under Section 62 of the Code in Civil Appeal No. 10710 of 2018, which was considered and decided by way of the order dated 26.02.2019.9.1. In the order dated 26.02.2019, this Court took note of the fact that in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, one of the grounds agitated was that the claim of the respondent was barred by time for, admittedly, the default was committed on 08.07.2011 whereas the application was filed in the month of March, 2018.9.2. After noticing that the principal issue relating to limitation, though raised by the appellant, was not even decided by the Appellate Tribunal; and after referring to the decision in B.K. Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Paras Gupta & Associates: AIR 2018 SC 5601 , wherein it was held that the Limitation Act is applicable to application filed under Section 7 of the Code, this Court remanded the matter to the Appellate Tribunal for deciding the issue of limitation with respect to the application in question in accordance with law while setting aside the impugned order dated 17.09.2018 and while granting liberty to the parties to submit additional affidavit/s in support of their respective contentions. This Court observed and ordered, inter alia, as under:-Although, we find that the ground articulated in the appeal memo is vague, but, as the objection regarding limitation goes to the root of the matter and touches upon the jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal to proceed with the claim of the respondent; and since the recent decision of this Court in B.K. Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Paras Gupta & Associates – AIR 2018 SC 5601 has held that the question of limitation is applicable even the applications filed under Section 7 of the I. & B. Code, it would be just and necessary to answer the said objection appropriately, in accordance with law.Indisputably, neither the National Company Law Tribunal nor the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, in the present case, has examined the said contention. Indeed, according to the respondent, the plea of claim being barred by limitation is unstatable and, to buttress this argument, the respondent has relied upon the entries in the books of account of the appellant and other related documents. However, that is a matter which ought to be agitated before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in the first place.Accordingly, we relegate the parties before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration of the objection raised by the appellant that the claim of the respondent is barred by limitation…..The impugned order dated 14.05. 2019 by NCLAT after remand10. In compliance of the aforesaid order of this Court dated 26.02.2019, the Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) took up the said appeal for consideration afresh and proceeded to dismiss the same by way of its impugned order dated 14.05.2019 while holding that the application in question is not barred by limitation.10.1. In the introductory paragraphs 1 to 4 of the impugned order dated 14.05.2019, the Appellate Tribunal referred to the subject matter of appeal as also the orders passed in the previous round of proceedings; and in paragraphs 5 and 6, took note of the rival contentions. Thereafter, in paragraphs 7 to 14, the Appellate Tribunal took note of the background facts including those pertaining to the loans taken by the corporate debtor and creation of securities by way of mortgage of immovable properties and hypothecation of stock-in-trade and plant and machinery; the assignment in favour of respondent No. 2 by the lender bank; the loan having been shown by the corporate debtor in its annual reports; pendency of the petition under Section 19 of the Act of 1993 for recovery of the due amount of loan; and a letter dated 31.07.2018 said to have been sent on behalf of the corporate debtor to the respondent No. 2 for one time settlement (OTS for short) .10.1.1. In paragraph 15 of the impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal referred to the decision of this Court in the case of B. K. Educational Services (supra) as also Section 238-A of the Code to notice that law of limitation is applicable to the application under Section 7 of the Code. However, in paragraph 16, the Appellate Tribunal made the observation that for filing the application under Section 7 of the I&B Code, Article 132 of Part 2 (other application) is applicable; and proceeded to reproduce the said Article 132 of the Limitation Act. Thereafter, in paragraphs 17 to 19, the Appellate Tribunal referred to the frame of Schedule to the Limitation Act and its Divisions, dealing with suits, appeals and applications respectively. Coming to the crux of the matter, in paragraph 20 of the impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal referred to Article 137 dealing with OTHER APPLICATIONS, as occurring in Part II of Third Division of Schedule to the Limitation Act and reproduced the same while observing that this Article 137 is applicable to the application/s under Section 7 or Section 9 or Section 10 of the Code.10.2. After the aforementioned observations and overview of the facts and the law applicable, the Appellate Tribunal, in paragraph 21 of the impugned order, stated the first reason for its conclusion that the application in question is not barred by limitation in the manner that the right to apply under Section 7 of the Code accrued to the respondent financial creditor only on 01.12.2016 when the Code came into existence. The Appellate Tribunal said, -21. The I&B Code has come into existence on 1st December, 2016 and thereafter the right to apply accrued to respondent – Financial Creditor under Section 7 of the I&B code only on 1st December, 2016. The application having filed in the year 2018, we hold that the application under Section 7 is not barred by limitation.10.3. Thereafter, in paragraph 22, the Appellate Tribunal extracted the relevant passages from the decision in Innoventive Industries (supra) wherein this Court has explained as to how the CIRP is triggered in the scheme of IBC; and has underscored the requirement of existence of default on the part of the corporate debtor wherefor and whereby a financial creditor could maintain an action under Section 7 of the Code as also the essential elements of the process of such an action, including the form and manner of moving the application in conformity with the Rules of 2016 and initial enquiry by the Adjudicating Authority on the question as to whether a default has occurred. Then, in paragraph 23 of the impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal also took note that in Innoventive Industries, this Court has further held that during such consideration by the Adjudicating Authority, the corporate debtor is entitled to point out that default has not occurred in the sense that the debt is not due; and that a debt may not be due if it is not payable in law or in fact.10.4. Thereafter, in paragraph 24, the Appellate Tribunal, with reference to its own decision in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 82 of 2018: Binani Industries Ltd. v. Bank of Baroda and Anr., observed that the Code does not relate to litigation nor the proceedings were of suit or money suit; and the period of limitation prescribed in First Division of the Limitation Act is not applicable to the proceedings under the Code. However, thereafter in paragraph 25 of the impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal observed that though the law of limitation as prescribed in First Division, Second Division and Part I of Third Division of the Schedule to the Limitation Act is not applicable, the corporate debtor could take a plea that debt is not due, as it is not payable in law being barred by limitation. These paragraphs 24 and 25 of the impugned order read as under: -24. In Binani Industries Ltd. vs. Bank of Baroda & Anr. – Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) NO. 82 of 2018 this Appellate Tribunal held that Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code does not relate to litigation nor it is a suit or money suit. In that background the period of limitation prescribed in the First Division is not applicable through I&B Code proceedings.25. Though we have held that the law of limitation for filing a suit (First Division) or Appeals (Second Division) or application under Part I (Third division) are not applicable, the Corporate Debtor can take a plea that debt is not due, as it is not payable in law being barred by limitation.10.5. After the aforementioned observations, the Appellate Tribunal indicated the question to be examined in the matter in paragraph 26 and proceeded to decide the same in the ensuing paragraphs. In paragraphs 27 and 28 of the impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal referred to the undisputed fact that the financial creditor had already filed a petition under Section 19 of the Act of 1993 that was pending; and also observed that the appellant has suppressed the fact that on 31.07.2018, the corporate debtor approached the financial creditor for one time settlement. After these observations, the Appellate Tribunal referred to the facts that nine properties of the corporate debtor had been mortgaged with the financial creditor and that the financial creditor had adopted the proceedings for enforcement of mortgage security and had recovered possession pursuant to the order passed by DRT. Having thus referred to the other proceedings and particularly the enforcement of mortgage security, the Appellate Tribunal referred to the limitation period of twelve years for recovery of possession of mortgaged property as per Article 61(b) of the Limitation Act in paragraphs 29 and 30 and concluded that the property having been mortgaged, the claim is not barred by limitation as the period of limitation is twelve years with regard to the mortgaged property. These considerations, observations and findings led the Appellate Tribunal to hold and conclude in paragraph 31 of the impugned order that the application under Section 7 of the Code is not barred by limitation. These paragraphs 26 to 31 of the impugned order read as under:-26. In the present case, it is to be noticed whether the debt is not payable in law by the Corporate Debtor and/or the default being barred by limitation.27. We have noticed that immediately on default, Respondent No. 2 – Financial Creditor has already moved before the DRT under Section 19 of the The Recovery of Debts Due to the Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 and O.A. No. 172 of 2017 which is still pending. This fact has also been accepted and pleaded by the Appellant.28. The Appellant has suppressed the fact that recently the Corporate Debtor by letter dated 31st July, 2018 approached Respondent No. 2 (Financial Creditor) for one time settlement. There is a finding that there is a continuous cause of action. The appellant has not disputed that 9 properties i.e. land and building have been mortgaged by the Corporate Debtor with Respondent No. 2 - Financial Creditor. Respondent No. 2 also preferred a criminal proceeding on 27th June, 2017 as the enforcement mortgage of which possession was taken by 2 nd Respondent after the order passed by the DRT, Aurangabad.29. Part V (First Division) of Limitation Act relates to Suits relating to immovable property to recover possession of the property mortgaged and afterwards transferred by the mortgagee for a valuable consideration. The period of limitation is 12 years since the transfer becomes known to the plaintiff [Article 61(b)].30. In view of the aforesaid position of law, the property having mortgaged, we also hold that the claim is not barred by limitation as the period of limitation is 12 years with regard to mortgaged property and in terms of Section 5 (7) read with Section 5(8) as the property is mortgaged, Respondent No. 2 also comes within the meaning of Financial Creditor.31. Therefore, we hold that the application under Section 7 is not barred by limitation nor the claim of Respondent No. 2 is barred by limitation. We reject the plea that no debt is payable by the Corporate Debtor in the eyes of law. We find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs11. For what has been noticed hereinabove, it could be reasonably deciphered that the Appellate Tribunal has rejected the plea of bar of limitation essentially on two major considerations: One, that the right to apply under Section 7 of the Code accrued to the respondent financial creditor only on 01.12.2016 when the Code came into force Paragraph 21 of the impugned order ibid. ; and second, that the period of limitation for recovery of possession of themortgaged property is twelve years (Paragraphs 29 and 30 of the impugned order ibid.) . Noticeably, though the Appellate Tribunal has referred to the pendency of the application under Section 19 of the Act of 1993 as also the fact that corporate debtor had made a prayer for OTS in the month of July, 2018 but, has not recorded any specific finding about the effect of these factors.5. On 09.08.2019, after having heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent No. 2 preliminarily, we issued notice to the respondent No. 1 and by way of interim order, directed status quo in regard to the proceedings in question.

Court's reasoning:
19. The expositions abovementioned make it clear that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 has been enacted to consolidate and amend the laws relating to reorganisation and insolvency resolution of corporate persons and other entrepreneurs in a time bound manner so as to ensure maximisation of value of assets of such persons and to balance the interest of all the stakeholders. As regards corporate debtor, the primary focus of the Code is to ensure its revival and continuation by protecting it from its own management and, as far as feasible, to save it from liquidation. As tersely put by this Court in Swiss Ribbons (supra), the Code is thus a beneficial legislation which puts the corporate debtor back on its feet, not being a mere recovery legislation for creditors.19.1. When the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process is understood on the anvil of the aforementioned fundamentals on the spirit and intent of IBC, it is also evident that such a process is not intended to be adversarial to the corporate debtor but is essentially to protect its interests.19.2. In relation to a financial creditor, the trigger for CIRP is default by the corporate debtor of rupees one lakh or more against the debt/s. When seeking initiation of CIRP qua a corporate debtor, the financial creditor is required to make the application in conformity with the requirements of Section 7 of the Code while divulging the necessary information and evidence, as required by the Rules of 2016. After completion of all other requirements, for admitting such an application of the financial creditor, the Adjudicating Authority has to be satisfied, as per sub-section (5) of Section 7 of the Code, that default has occurred and, in this process of consideration by the Adjudicating Authority, the corporate debtor is entitled to point out that default has not occurred in the sense that the debt, which may also include a disputed claim, is not due. A debt may not be due if it is not payable in law or in fact. As observed by this Court, the legislative policy now is to move away from the concept of inability to pay debts to determination of default.20. Having taken note of the rudiments that the Code is a beneficial legislation intended to put the corporate debtor on its feet and it is not a mere money recovery legislation for the creditors; and having also noticed that CIRP is not intended to be adversarial to the corporate debtor but is essentially to protect its interests and that CIRP has its genesis in default on the part of the corporate debtor, we may now examine the operation of law of limitation over the proceedings under the Code.30. When Section 238-A of the Code is read with the above-noted consistent decisions of this Court in Innoventive Industries, B.K. Educational Services, Swiss Ribbons, K. Sashidhar, Jignesh Shah, Vashdeo R. Bhojwani, Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave and Sagar Sharma respectively, the following basics undoubtedly come to the fore: (a) that the Code is a beneficial legislation intended to put the corporate debtor back on its feet and is not a mere money recovery legislation; (b) that CIRP is not intended to be adversarial to the corporate debtor but is aimed at protecting the interests of the corporate debtor; (c) that intention of the Code is not to give a new lease of life to debts which are time-barred; (d) that the period of limitation for an application seeking initiation of CIRP under Section 7 of the Code is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act and is, therefore, three years from the date when right to apply accrues; (e) that the trigger for initiation of CIRP by a financial creditor is default on the part of the corporate debtor, that is to say, that the right to apply under the Code accrues on the date when default occurs; (f) that default referred to in the Code is that of actual non-payment by the corporate debtor when a debt has become due and payable; and (g) that if default had occurred over three years prior to the date of filing of the application, the application would be time-barred save and except in those cases where, on facts, the delay in filing may be condoned; and (h) an application under Section 7 of the Code is not for enforcement of mortgage liability and Article 62 of the Limitation Act does not apply to this application.25.1 In order to comprehend the meaning and import of the referred observations in paragraph 21 of Jignesh Shah, the text thereof is required to be read in its context.25.3. Though with the aforesaid finding, the matter stood concluded that the petition filed by IL&FS was barred by limitation but thereafter, the Court also proceeded to examine another line of submissions of the parties as regards effect of the suit for recovery over the proceedings under Section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956, where it was argued on behalf of the appellants that existence of such a suit cannot be construed as having either revived the period of limitation or having extended it, insofar as concerning the proceeding for winding up. This Court accepted the said contention of the appellants and in that context, made the observations that are relied upon by the parties and read as under:-21. The aforesaid judgments correctly hold that a suit for recovery based upon a cause of action that is within limitation cannot in any manner impact the separate and independent remedy of a winding-up proceeding. In law, when time begins to run, it can only be extended in the manner provided in the Limitation Act. For example, an acknowledgment of liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act would certainly extend the limitation period, but a suit for recovery, which is a separate and independent proceeding distinct from the remedy of winding up would, in no manner, impact the limitation within which the winding-up proceeding is to be filed, by somehow keeping the debt alive for the purpose of the winding-up proceeding.25.2. This Court accepted the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants and while reproducing the relevant passages from B.K. Educational Services, held that the bar of limitation was operating over the application filed by IL&FS in the following words:-12. This judgment clinches the issue in favour of the Petitioner/Appellant. With the introduction of Section 238A into the Code, the provisions of the Limitation Act apply to applications made under the Code. Winding up petitions filed before the Code came into force are now converted into petitions filed under the Code. What has, therefore, to be decided is whether the Winding up Petition, on the date that it was filed, is barred by lapse of time. If such petition is found to be time-barred, then Section 238A of the Code will not give a new lease of life to such a time-barred petition. On the facts of this case, it is clear that as the Winding up Petition was filed beyond three years from August, 2012 which is when, even according to IL & FS, default in repayment had occurred, it is barred by time.(emphasis in bold supplied)32. We have noticed all the relevant and material observations and enunciations in the case of Jignesh Shah hereinbefore. Prima facie, it appears that illustrative reference to Section 18 of the Limitation Act, in paragraph 21 of the decision in Jignesh Shah, had only been in relation to the suit or other proceedings, wherever it could apply and where the period of limitation could get extended because of acknowledgment of liability. Noticeably, in contradistinction to the proceeding of a suit, this Court observed that a suit for recovery, which is a separate and independent proceeding distinct from the remedy of winding up would, in no manner, impact the limitation within which the winding up proceeding is to be filed . It is difficult to read the observations in the aforesaid paragraph 21 of Jignesh Shah to mean that the ratio of B.K. Educational Services has, in any manner, been altered by this Court. As noticed, in B.K. Educational Services, it has clearly been held that the limitation period for application under Section 7 of the Code is three years as provided by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, which commences from the date of default and is extendable only by application of Section 5 of Limitation Act, if any case for condonation of delay is made out. The findings in paragraph 12 in Jignesh Shah makes it clear that the Court indeed applied the principles so stated in B.K. Educational Services, and held that the winding up petition filed beyond three years from the date of default was barred by time.32.1. Even in the later decisions, this Court has consistently applied the declaration of law in B.K. Educational Services (supra). As noticed, in the case of Vashdeo R. Bhojwani (supra), this Court rejected the contention suggesting continuing cause of action for the purpose of application under Section 7 of the Code while holding that the limitation started ticking from the date of issuance of recovery certificate dated 24.12.2001. Again, in the case of Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave (supra), where the date of default was stated in the application under Section 7 of the Code to be the date of NPA i.e., 21.07.2011, this Court held that the limitation began to run from the date of NPA and hence, the application filed under Section 7 of the Code on 03.10.2017 was barred by limitation.32.2. In view of the above, we are not inclined to accept the arguments built up by the respondents with reference to one part of observations occurring in paragraph 21 of the decision in Jignesh Shah (supra).33. Apart from the above and even if it be assumed that the principles relating to acknowledgement as per Section 18 of the Limitation Act are applicable for extension of time for the purpose of the application under Section 7 of the Code, in our view, neither the said provision and principles come in operation in the present case nor they enure to the benefit of respondent No. 2 for the fundamental reason that in the application made before NCLT, the respondent No. 2 specifically stated the date of default as 8.7.2011 being the date of NPA. It remains indisputable that neither any other date of default has been stated in the application nor any suggestion about any acknowledgement has been made. As noticed, even in Part-V of the application, the respondent No. 2 was required to state the particulars of financial debt with documents and evidence on record. In the variety of descriptions which could have been given by the applicant in the said Part- V of the application and even in residuary Point No. 8 therein, nothing was at all stated at any place about the so called acknowledgment or any other date of default.33.1. Therefore, on the admitted fact situation of the present case, where only the date of default as 08.07.2011 has been stated for the purpose of maintaining the application under Section 7 of the Code, and not even a foundation is laid in the application for suggesting any acknowledgement or any other date of default, in our view, the submissions sought to be developed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 at the later stage cannot be permitted. It remains trite that the question of limitation is essentially a mixed question of law and facts and when a party seeks application of any particular provision for extension or enlargement of the period of limitation, the relevant facts are required to be pleaded and requisite evidence is required to be adduced. Indisputably, in the present case, the respondent No. 2 never came out with any pleading other than stating the date of default as 08.07.2011 in the application. That being the position, no case for extension of period of limitation is available to be examined. In other words, even if Section 18 of the Limitation Act and principles thereof were applicable, the same would not apply to the application under consideration in the present case, looking to the very averment regarding default therein and for want of any other averment in regard to acknowledgement. In this view of the matter, reliance on the decision in Mahaveer Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. does not advance the cause of the respondent No. 2.34. The submissions made on behalf of respondents that the rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties and reference to the decision in N. Balakrishnan (supra) are also misplaced. Application of the rules of limitation to CIRP (by virtue of Section 238-A of the Code read with the above-referred consistent decisions of this Court) does not, in any manner, deal with any of the rights of respondent No. 2; it only bars recourse to the particular remedy of initiation of CIRP under the Code. Equally, the other submissions made on behalf of the respondents about any stringent application of the law of limitation which was introduced to the Code only after filing of the application by respondent No. 2; or about the so called prejudice likely to be caused to other banks and financial institutions are also of no substance, particularly in the light of the principles laid down and consistently followed by this Court right from the decision in B.K. Educational Services (supra). These contentions have only been noted to be rejected. Needless to add that when the application made by the respondent No. 2 for CIRP is barred by limitation, no proceedings undertaken therein after the order of admission could be of any effect. All such proceedings remain non-est and could only be annulled.35. The foregoing discussion practically concludes the principal part of contentions urged in this matter but, to put the record straight, we may also deal with the reasonings adopted by NCLAT in the impugned order dated 14.05.2019. As noticed hereinbefore, though NCLAT has referred to the pendency of the application under Section 19 of the Act of 1993 as also the fact that corporate debtor had made a prayer for OTS in the month of July, 2018 but, has not recorded any specific finding about the effect of these factors. Only two reasons essentially appear to have weighed with NCLAT to hold that the application in question is within limitation: One, that the right to apply under Section 7 of the Code accrued to the respondent financial creditor on 01.12.2016 when the Code came into force; and second, that the period of limitation for recovery of possession of the mortgaged property is twelve years. The reasonings so adopted by NCLAT do not stand in conformity with the law declared by this Court and could only be disapproved.36. The question as to whether date of enforcement of the Code (i.e., 01.12.2016) provides the starting point of limitation for an application under Section 7 of the Code and hence, the application in question, made in the year 2018, is within limitation, is not even worth devoting much time. A bare look at paragraph 21 of the impugned order leaves nothing to guess that such observations by the Appellate Tribunal had only been assumptive in nature without any foundation and without any basis. There is nothing in the Code to even remotely indicate if the period of limitation for the purpose of an application under Section 7 is to commence from the date of commencement of the Code itself. Similarly, nothing provided in the Limitation Act could be taken as the basis to support the proposition so stated by the Appellate Tribunal. In fact, such observations had been in the teeth of law declared by this Court in the case of B. K. Educational Services (supra).36.1. It appears that at the given point of time, NCLAT had been readily adopting such a proposition in other cases too, so as to treat similar applications within limitation. This approach of NCLAT was specifically disapproved by this Court in Sagar Sharma (supra) where, after observing that in B. K. Educational Services (supra) it had already been made clear that the date of the Codes coming into force on 01.12.2016 was wholly irrelevant to the triggering of any limitation period for the purposes of the Code, this Court said,-3. Article 141 of the Constitution of India mandates that our judgments are followed in letter and spirit. The date of coming into force of the IB Code does not and cannot form a trigger point of limitation for applications filed under the Code. Equally, since applications are petitions which are filed under the Code, it is Article 137 of the Limitation Act which will apply to such applications.37. The other observations as made and the reasoning as adopted by the Appellate Tribunal in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the impugned order, that the property having been mortgaged, the claim is not barred by limitation because of the period of limitation of twelve years with regard to mortgaged property, had again been erroneous and do not stand in conformity with the dictum of this Court.37.1. The Appellate Tribunal was conscious of the decision of this Court in B. K. Educational Services (supra) wherein it had been held in no uncertain terms that the limitation provided in Article 137 governs the application under Section 7 of the Code. When Article 137, being the residuary provision on the period of limitation for other applications is held applicable by this Court for the purpose of reckoning the period of limitation for an application under Section 7 of the Code, it remains rather inexplicable as to how the Appellate Tribunal could have applied any other Article of Limitation Act (and that too relating to suits) for the purpose of such an application?37.2. In the totality of circumstances, we are also constrained to refer to paragraph 24 of the very same order wherein, the Appellate Tribunal has noticed its own decision in the case of Binani Industries, holding that the period of limitation prescribed in the First Division of the Schedule to the Limitation Act (providing limitation period for suits) is not applicable to the proceedings under the Code. However, the observations and findings in the later part of the impugned order are contrary even to those occurring in the said paragraph 24 of the very same order.37.3 It again appears that in other cases too, similar reasoning prevailed with the Adjudicating Authorities as also the Appellate Tribunal, where the Articles of the Limitation Act relating to the suits concerning mortgaged property (and thereby the period of limitation of twelve years) were sought to be applied to hold that similar applications under Section 7 of the Code were not barred by limitation. Such propositions were specifically disapproved by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave (supra) decided on 18.09.2019. As noticed hereinbefore, in Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave (supra) this Court disapproved the approach of Adjudicating Authority in applying Article 62 of the Limitation Act to such an application under Section 7 of the Code with the observations that Article 62 is out of way, for it applies only to suits; and application under Section 7 falls within the ambit of residuary Article 137. In Sagar Sharma (supra), this Court again pointed out the fallacy in applying the period of limitation related to mortgage liability for the purpose of application under Section 7 of the Code.37.4. In view of the above, there remains nothing to doubt that the Appellate Tribunal had been in error in applying the period of limitation provided for mortgage liability for the purpose of limitation applicable to the application in question. The observations and findings in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the impugned order are also required to be disapproved.38. The discussion foregoing leads to the inescapable conclusion that the application made by the respondent No. 2 under Section 7 of the Code in the month of March 2018, seeking initiation of CIRP in respect of the corporate debtor with specific assertion of the date of default as 08.07.2011, is clearly barred by limitation for having been filed much later than the period of three years from the date of default as stated in the application. The NCLT having not examined the question of limitation; the NCLAT having decided the question of limitation on entirely irrelevant considerations; and the attempt on the part of the respondents to save the limitation with reference to the principles of acknowledgment having been found unsustainable, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and the application filed by the respondent No. 2 deserves to be rejected as being barred by limitation.39. Before concluding on this matter, we would hasten to observe that admittedly, at the time of moving of the application under Section 7 of the Code by the respondent No. 2, a petition under Section 19 of the Act of 1993 was pending before DRT against the corporate debtor. In view of admission of the application under Section 7 of the Code by NCLT, the said petition under Section 19 of the Act of 1993 (and any other pending matter against the corporate debtor) could not have proceeded during the period of moratorium in terms of Section 14 of the Code.