# In the matter of Speculum Plast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PTC Techno Pvt. Ltd. CA (AT) No. 47-2017

> NCLAT judgment dated 2017-11-07. Citation: TCN-2017-NCLAT-00078. The document contains the judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT)…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 7 Nov 2017
- **Citation:** TCN-2017-NCLAT-00078
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/speculum-plast-pvt-ltd-vs-ptc-techno-pvt-ltd-ca-df350b4a

## Summary

### Background

The document contains the judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) regarding the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I&B Code). The appeals arose from orders passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi, in three separate company petitions. The NCLT had dismissed the applications for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on the ground that the claims were barred by limitation. The appeals were heard together as they involved a common question of law.

## Facts

Three separate Company Appeals (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 47, 76 and 78 of 2017 were filed against orders of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) which rejected applications for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I&B Code) on the ground of limitation. The appeals were filed by M/s. Speculum Plast Pvt. Ltd., Parag Gupta & Associates, and Ashlay Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. against PTC Techno Pvt. Ltd., B.K. Educational Services Pvt. Ltd., and LDS Engineers Pvt. Ltd., respectively. The invoices in the case of M/s. Speculum Plast Pvt. Ltd. were raised between April 1, 2013, and September 19, 2013. In the case of Parag Gupta, amounts were paid between October 1, 2012, and February 5, 2013. The

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable for triggering 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution …

**Ratio:** The I&B Code is a 'Special Act' and a 'self-contained code'. While the Limitation

…

**Reasoning:** The NCLAT reasoned that the I&B Code has specific provisions regarding time limits

…

**Interpretation:** The I&B Code is interpreted as a complete code in itself, designed to

…

**Application:** The NCLAT held that the Adjudicating Authority should not dismiss applications

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…
- **Appellants:** M/s. Speculum…
- **Respondents:** PTC Techno Pvt.…
- **Advocates:** Shubho…; Kanti Mohan…; +8 more

## Timeline

- **2017-04-11 — Order by Adjudicating…**: The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) passed an order in Company…
- **2017-04-25 — Order by Adjudicating…**: The Adjudicating Authority passed an order in Company Petition No. (IB)-27(PB)/2017,…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 5 — Definitions](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-5)

---

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/speculum-plast-pvt-ltd-vs-ptc-techno-pvt-ltd-ca-df350b4a