In Zest Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Center for Vocational and
Entrepreneurship Studies, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12116, the Delhi High Court held:
“5. In Shahi Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. CMD Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. (supra)
this court held as follows:—
“7. It is hardly necessary to cite authorities in support
of the well-established position that an entry made in
the company’s balance sheet amounts to an
acknowledgement of the debt and has the effect of
extending the period of limitation under section 18 of
the Limitation Act, 1963. However, I may refer to only
one decision of the learned single judge of this Court
(Manmohan, J.) in Bhajan Singh Samra v. Wimpy
International Ltd., 185 (2011) DLT 428 for the simple
reason that it collects all the relevant authorities on the
issue, including some of the judgments cited before me
on behalf of the petitioners. This judgment entirely
supports the petitioners on this point.”{Para 31}
6. In view of the legal position spelt out in judgments noted
above, the acknowledgement of the debt in the balance sheet
extends the period of limitation. The acknowledgement is as on
31.3.2015. This suit is filed in 2017. The suit is clearly within
limitation. The present application is allowed.”
32. In Agni Aviation Consultants v. State of Telangana, 2020 SCC
OnLine TS 1462 : (2020) 5 ALD 561, the High Court of Telangana held:
“107. In several cases, various High Courts have held that an
acknowledgement of liability in the balance sheet by a
Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 extends
the period of limitation though it is not addressed to the creditor
specifically. (Zest Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Center for Vocational
and Entrepreneurship Studies, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12116,
Bhajan Singh Samra v. Wimpy International Ltd., 2012 SCC
OnLine Del 2939, Vijay Kumar Machinery and Electrical Stores
v. Alaparthi Lakshmi Kanthamma, (1969) 74 ITR 224 (AP), and
Bengal Silk Mills Company, Raja of Vizianagram v. Official
Liquidator, Vizianagram Mining Company Limited, AIR 1952
Mad 1361).
108. Therefore it is not necessary that the acknowledgement of
liability must be contained in a document addressed to the
creditor i.e. the petitioners in the instant case.”
33. It is, therefore, clear that the majority decision of the Full Bench in V. Padmakumar (supra) is contrary to the aforesaid catena of judgments.The minority judgment of Justice (Retd.) A.I.S. Cheema, Member (Judicial), after considering most of these judgments, has reached the correct conclusion. We, therefore, set aside the majority judgment of the Full Bench of the NCLAT dated 12.03.2020.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.323 OF 2021
ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED
Vs BISHAL JAISWAL
Author: R.F. Nariman, J.
Dated:April 15, 2021.
