Disclaimer

By clicking, "I Accept" below, you accept and acknowledge the following:

The purpose of this website is to provide general information and insights about TLH, Advocates & Solicitors, and not to advertise or solicit work in any manner whatsoever.

Please note that as per the Bar Council of India Rules, advocates in India are prohibited from advertising or soliciting work in any form or manner. You acknowledge that you are visiting this website at your discretion and that there has been no solicitation, invitation, or inducement of any sort whatsoever from TLH, Advocates & Solicitors or any of its professionals in relation to this website.

The content available on this website does not constitute legal or other professional advice and should not be substituted for advice relevant to particular circumstances.

The access and use of this website does not establish any fiduciary or other relationship between you and TLH, Advocates & Solicitors or any of its advocates.

Please read the ‘Terms of Use’ and our ‘Privacy Policy’ before accessing this website.

Blog default background
Blog
Dispute Resolution

Acknowledgement of Debt by Inclusion in Balance Sheet ��� Part 2

Authors:
Ranjani Ramesh
August 14, 2021
5 min read
Share this post
Copied!

Background

In the case of V. Padmakumar vs. Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund (SASF) & Anr.[1] (“Padmakumar”), four out of five members held, inter alia, that entries reflected in the balance sheet of a company do not amount to acknowledgement of debt under the Limitation Act, 1963 (“Limitation Act”). Subsequently, in September 2020, a three-member bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLAT”) had the occasion to consider the applicability of Padmakumar in the case of Bishal Jaiswal vs. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited. & Anr[2]. (Referral Order). The bench made a reference to a larger bench to reconsider the majority opinion in Padmakumar.

In December 2020, a five-member bench of the NCLAT rejected the Referral Order and held[3] (“Rejection Order”) that (a) in disagreeing with the ratio in Padmakumar, the three-member bench did not follow judicial discipline, and (b) The decision in Padmakumar was passed after consideration of precedents with respect to acknowledgement of debt, therefore, reflecting debt in a balance sheet does not amount to acknowledgement of debt for the purpose of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). This article attempts to analyse the reasons given by the NCLAT while rejecting the Referral Order.

Rejection of the Referral Order

Judicial Discipline

The bench that passed the Rejection Order came down heavily on the Referral Order for the reason that the three-member bench ought not to have referred the decision of a five-member bench (Padmakumar) for reconsideration and should have observed judicial discipline. Law of precedents mandates that the decision of a larger bench is binding on a bench of lesser quorum . In Union of India vs. Raghubir Singh[4], the Supreme Court (“SC”) held that ‘There is no constitutional or statutory prescription in the matter, and the point is governed entirely by the practice in India of the Courts sanctified by repeated affirmation over a century of time.’ The practice in question has certain exceptions too.

In the case of Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others[5], the SC, inter alia, held as follows: “A Bench of lesser quorum cannot doubt the correctness of the view of the law taken by a Bench of larger quorum. In case of doubt all that the Bench of lesser quorum can do is to invite the attention of the Chief Justice and request for the matter being placed for hearing before a Bench of larger quorum than the Bench whose decision has come up for consideration. It will be open only for a Bench of coequal strength to express an opinion doubting the correctness of the view taken by the earlier Bench of coequal strength, whereupon the matter may be placed for hearing before a Bench consisting of a quorum larger than the one which pronounced the decision laying down the law the correctness of which is doubted.” The said position is in line with the earlier decisions of the SC in Pradip Chandra Parija and Others vs. Pramod Chandra Patnaik and Others[6] and Chandra Prakash and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh[7].

From the above, it is evident there is an exception which permits a bench of lesser quorum to respectfully disagree with a larger bench and refer the matter to a bench of strength equal to the said larger bench for consideration. Thereafter, if the latter larger bench believes that the decision of the former larger bench deserves reconsideration, it may refer the matter to an even larger bench to decide on the disagreement among the benches. The Referral Order was passed by a three-member bench, disagreeing with the order of a five-member bench. In line with the above exception to the law of precedents, it put up the matter for reconsideration by a bench of co-equal strength, i.e., consisting of five members.

In light of the above, it is surprising that the Rejection Order outrightly disagreed with the very act of reference, calling it an act of judicial indiscipline. The Referral Order is well within its bounds and did not deserve the flak it received in form of the Rejection Order. 

Acknowledgement of Debt

While reiterating the ratio laid down in Padmakumar and the judicial precedents discussed therein, the Rejection Order states that entries of debts in the balance sheets of a corporate debtor cannot be considered to be acknowledgement of debt. In doing so, the Rejection Order relies on the decision of the SC in Babulal Vardharji Gurjar vs. Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Private Limited and Others[8] (“Babulal Case”). The Rejection Order further observes that disclosure of debt in balance sheets, being mandatory in nature under the Companies Act, 2013, cannot be considered to be valid acknowledgement.

Firstly, the Babubal Case is distinguishable from the facts of the case the Referral Order was borne out of. In the former, the financial creditors never took the stand of acknowledgement of debt in balance sheets before the National Company Law Tribunal. It was brought to the notice of the NCLAT only at the stage of appeal. For this reason alone, the SC held that Section 18 of the Limitation Act would not be applicable in the Babulal Case. It appears that that Rejection Order has extrapolated the Babulal Case to mean that Section 18 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to the IBC. In this regard, the Referral Order had expressly and adequately distinguished itself from the Babulal Case. 

Secondly, the observation that preparation and filing of balance sheets is a mandatory requirement under the Companies Act, 2013 and must not fasten a liability on a corporate debtor may not hold water. Filing of balance sheets is undoubtedly a mandatory requirement. But the disclosure of debts thereunder is purely a decision borne out of prescribed accounting standards. A liability is disclosed in the balance sheet when a company has a present obligation, the settlement of which will result in outflow of resources embodying economic benefits.[9] If an entity does not acknowledge an obligation to settle a liability, the question of disclosure in the balance sheet does not arise.

Despite the issue with respect to entries of debts in balance sheets being referred for reconsideration in the Referral Order, the stand of the NCLAT  does not give a convincing finality to the issue.

Conclusion

The concerns raised in the Referral Order with respect to acknowledgement of debt due by inclusion of the said debt in balance sheets of a corporate debtor is valid. Whether a case aims to recover money or wind up a corporate entity, the essence of ‘debt’ remains the same. Therefore, it is necessary that there is consensus among adjudicating authorities regarding debts reflecting in balance sheets and their impact on the limitation period. Presently, the Rejection Order has been challenged before the SC[10]. Consequently, the proceedings before the NCLAT in Bishal Jaiswal vs. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited. & Anr. have been stayed. It will be interesting to see how the SC deals with the discrepancies in the legal position on this issue, specifically in the context of IBC.

The views and opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the author and do not reflect the position of Tatva Legal, Hyderabad.

[1] NCLAT judgment dated 12.03.2020 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 57 of 2020

[2] NCLAT judgment dated 25.09.2020 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 385 of 2020

[3] Bishal Jaiswal v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited and Others [2021] 224 CompCas 166

[4] 1989 (2) SCC 754

[5] (2005) 2 SCC 673

[6] (2002) 1 SCC 1

[7] (2003) SCC (LS) 827

[8] AIR 2020 SC 4668

[9] Indian Accounting Standard notified by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide GSR 111 (E) dated 16.02.2015

[10] Civil Appeal No. 323 of 2021

No items found.
NCLT, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, Limitation Act, Acknowledgement of Debt

Footnotes

Share this post
Copied!

Latest posts

July 10, 2025
From PSUs To Private Companies: Enforceability of Employment Bonds in India
This article explores the enforceability of employment bonds in India, focusing on their legal standing, key court decisions, and what makes such agreements valid or void in both public and private sectors.
Read more
Arrow Right
Corporate Law
July 9, 2025
SEBI’s New Disclosure Norms for Related Party Transactions: Redefining Corporate Governance in Listed Companies
The article revolves around corporate governance reforms introduced by SEBI related to Related Party Transactions (RPTs).
Read more
Arrow Right
Dispute Resolution
July 8, 2025
Revisiting the IBC-RERA Interplay in light of Umang Realtech
The article examines the evolving jurisprudence around the interface of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA), with particular focus on the recent Umang Realtech decision.
Read more
Arrow Right
Corporate Law
June 14, 2025
The Finfluencer Effect: Unravelling Market Manipulation
Recently, the Indian stock market regulator, Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) published a discussion paper addressing the growing concern pertaining to financial influencers, or finfluencers, providing financial advice. These influencers often lack the requisite qualifications and accountability for their recommendations.
Read more
Arrow Right
Employment Law
June 14, 2025
Contract Labour Deployment in India - Demystifying the Future Conceived by the Code on Occupational Safety, Health & Working Conditions, 2020
The business of human resource deployment by contractors for their clients has grown and evolved globally. In India, the contractor-sourced industrial workforce grew by about 293% between 2002-03 and 2021-22.[1] Recently, India has unfurled four labour codes that revamp its existing labour laws to meet the needs of the Indian workforce such as contract labour deployment.
Read more
Arrow Right
Corporate Law
June 14, 2025
Exploring Unchartered Territory? Laws for the Void
What can the Indian space sector learn from the Avengers? Besides, the incredible budget and scale, the key takeaway would be - bringing experts together to achieve phenomenal results. We all remember the fascinating back stories, the strength of and the role each member plays to fill an essential need under the able guidance of a strong leader.
Read more
Arrow Right
View All Blogs
Arrow Right