National Company Law Appellate TribunalInsolvency and Bankruptcy LawCivil Procedure and Evidence

COVID-19 exclusion period results in enlargement of limitation by adding the entire elapsed balance period after March 1, 2022.

State Bank of India v. Sanjay Baleshwar Rai (and consolidated appeals)

COVID-19 exclusion period results in enlargement of limitation by adding the entire elapsed balance period after March 1, 2022.. State Bank of India v. Sanjay Baleshwar Rai (and consolidated appeals). National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

Whether the Appellant was entitled to the "balance period of limitation" remaining as of 15.03.2020 to be available from 01.03.2022, or was restricted to a flat 90-day extension.

The court held

The NCLAT allowed the appeals and set aside the NCLT’s orders.

It also directed

It held that the Section 95 applications were not barred by time because the Appellant was entitled to the full balance of the limitation period remaining as of 15.03.2020, calculated from 01.03.2022, rather than just 90 days.

The Tribunal revived C.P.(IB)/61(AHM)2023, C.P.(IB)/60(AHM)2023, C.P.(IB) No.100/NCLT/AHM/2023, and C.P.(IB) No.101/NCLT/AHM/2023 for fresh consideration on merits.

01Facts

The Appellant (SBI) filed applications under Section 95 of the IBC against Personal Guarantors of two Corporate Debtors: M/s Kandla Energy and Chemicals Ltd. and Shri Jalaram Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.

¶ 3

In the first set of appeals (893 & 894), the DRT passed a decree on 25.06.2018; the Section 95 application was filed on 24.01.2023.

¶ 3(i)-(iii)

In the second set (1280 & 1281), the DRT passed a decree on 19.03.2018; Section 95 applications were filed on 25.02.2023.

¶ 3(iii)-(iv)

The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT Ahmedabad) dismissed all applications as barred by time, holding that under the Supreme Court’s Suo Motu extension orders, the limitation expired on 30.05.2022 (90 days from 01.03.2022).

¶ 3(iv)

02Issues

i.Whether the Appellant was entitled to the "balance period of limitation" remaining as of 15.03.2020 to be available from 01.03.2022, or was restricted to a flat 90-day extension.

¶ 7 / 20

03Law Applied

The Court primarily applied Section 95 and Section 238A of the IBC, 2016, read with Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a three-year period for filing applications.

¶ 2, 26

It relied extensively on the Supreme Court’s directions in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, M.A. No. 21 of 2022, which mandated the exclusion of the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for limitation purposes.

¶ 10

The Court further applied the principles from Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Ltd. and Arif Azim Company Ltd. v. Aptech Ltd., which established that such exclusion results in the enlargement of time and that the "balance period" remaining on 15.03.2020 becomes available from 01.03.2022.

¶ 12, 14, 15

Provisions in the judgment · 11 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Section 7Section 9Section 10Section 95

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 23

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138

Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5Section 12Section 13Section 14Section 15

04Reasoning

The NCLAT found that the NCLT erroneously applied only the 90-day grace period mentioned in Paragraph 5.III of the Supreme Court’s Suo Motu order.

¶ 27

The Appellate Tribunal clarified that the Supreme Court's order contains two distinct benefits: (1) if the limitation expired during the COVID period, the litigant gets the balance period remaining as of 15.03.2020 starting from 01.03.2022; and (2) if that balance is less than 90 days, it is extended to a minimum of 90 days.

¶ 10, 17, 20

In appeals 893 & 894, since 1 year, 3 months, and 9 days of the three-year term remained as of 15.03.2020, that same duration became available from 01.03.2022, extending the deadline to 10.06.2023.

¶ 25

Similarly, in appeals 1280 & 1281, the balance of 1 year and 3 days extended the deadline to 04.03.2023.

¶ 25

Since the SBI filed its applications in January and February 2023, they fell within these extended "longer periods" as permitted by the Supreme Court’s proviso that "the longer period shall apply".

¶ 20, 25

05Holding

The NCLAT allowed the appeals and set aside the NCLT’s orders.

¶ 29

It held that the Section 95 applications were not barred by time because the Appellant was entitled to the full balance of the limitation period remaining as of 15.03.2020, calculated from 01.03.2022, rather than just 90 days.

¶ 26

The Tribunal revived C.P.(IB)/61(AHM)2023, C.P.(IB)/60(AHM)2023, C.P.(IB) No.100/NCLT/AHM/2023, and C.P.(IB) No.101/NCLT/AHM/2023 for fresh consideration on merits.

¶ 29
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal

Original Court PDF

State Bank of India v. Sanjay Baleshwar Rai (and consolidated appeals)

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment