IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 3197 of 2020 Ranjit Kapoor Appellant(s) Versus Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Respondent(s) Limited (ARCIL) and Another O R D E R 1 We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 11 February 2020 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No 256 of 2020. 2 The Civil Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 3 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. … .....…...….......………………........J. [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud] ..…....…........……………….…........J. [Vikram Nath] ..…....…........……………….…........J. [Hima Kohli] New Delhi; September 03, 2021 CKB
ITEM NO.21 Court 4 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No.3197/2020 RANJIT KAPOOR Appellant(s) VERSUS ASSET RECONSTURCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LTD. & ANR. Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for IA No.93299/2020-STAY APPLICATION) Date : 03-09-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI For Appellant(s) Mr. J.P. Cama, Sr. Adv. Mr. Naveen Chawla, Adv. Mr. Manyank Bughani, Adv. Mr. T. Mahipal, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Mohit D. Ram, AOR Mr. Karan Batura, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order. 2 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master (Signed order is placed on the file)
1 ITEM NO.3 Court 6 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s).3197/2020 RANJIT KAPOOR Appellant(s) VERSUS ASSET RECONSTURCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LTD. & ANR. Respondent(s) (WITH IA No.93299/2020-STAY APPLICATION ) Date : 17-12-2020 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE For Appellant(s) Mr. Naveen Chawla, Adv. Mr. Mayank Gugnani, Adv. Mr. T. Mahipal, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 Mr Naveen Chawla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, with Mr Mayank Gugnani, learned counsel, submits that the issue as to whether the period of limitation for filing a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 1 is relatable to the date on which the assets were declared as non-performing assets has been placed for hearing in the open court following a review petition 2 . 2 It has been submitted that in the appeal that was filed against the order of admission by the appellant herein, the question of limitation was specifically raised, but was not dealt with when the appeal was dismissed by the NCLAT. 1
“IBC” 2 Review Petition (C) Diary No 39025 of 2019
2 Hence, it has been submitted that having due regard to the inherent powers of the National Company Law Tribunal under Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules 2016 framed under IBC, an application was filed so as to facilitate a decision on the defence of limitation, which has been dismissed. 3 Issue notice, returnable in twelve weeks. 4 Counter affidavit shall be filed within six weeks from the date of service. (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER