# In the matter of Mrs. R. Mngalam Vs. SPML Infra Ltd.

> NCLAT judgment dated 2020-02-18. Citation: TCN-2020-NCLAT-00390. The case involves an appeal against an order dated 19.07.2019 passed by the National Company…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 18 Feb 2020
- **Citation:** TCN-2020-NCLAT-00390
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/mrs-r-mngalam-vs-spml-infra-ltd-3fa48545

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an appeal against an order dated 19.07.2019 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi, Bench III, in Company Petition No. IB-1576/(ND)/2018. The original applicant, Mrs. R. Mangalam, filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) before the NCLT, which was dismissed as time-barred. The appeal was filed before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The appellant claimed that the respondent, M/s SPML Infra Ltd. (Corporate Debtor), had issued a Letter of Offer (LOF) dated 19.09.1995, offering shares and debentures. The appellant applied and was allotted 66530 debentures. The appellant argued that the respondent had not received the minimum 90% subscription required and that SEBI

…

## Facts

Mrs. R. Mangalam, the appellant, filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) against M/s SPML Infra Ltd. (Corporate Debtor), the respondent, claiming to be a financial creditor. The appellant claimed that the respondent had issued a Letter of Offer (LOF) dated 19.09.1995, offering shares and debentures. The appellant applied and was allotted 66530 debentures with a face value of Rs. 150/- per debenture. She paid Rs. 20/- per debenture at the time of application, with Rs. 130/- to be paid on allotment. The appellant alleged that the respondent did not receive the minimum 90% subscription required and that SEBI had passed orders in 2004 holding the issue under LOF. The appellant claimed that the date of refund of proceeds by

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the application under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, was barred …

**Ratio:** The principle of limitation dictates that legal proceedings must be initiated within a

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the appellant's claim was time-barred because the date of default

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation of the limitation period is strict, and the court must

…

**Application:** The court applied the principle of limitation to the facts of the case and

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** A.I.S. C…; KanthiNar…
- **Appellants:** R. Mang…
- **Respondents:** M/S SPML INFRA…
- **Advocates:** R. Subram…; Shailesh…; +4 more

## Timeline

- **1995-09-19 — Letter of…**: Respondent issued Letter of…
- **1996-01-05 — Date of R…**: Appellant claimed this was the…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 7 — Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-7)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/mrs-r-mngalam-vs-spml-infra-ltd-3fa48545