Limitation Period Conflicts in Bankruptcy Claims and Proceedings
1d. The defendant, Mr. Dam, was ordered to pay the debt as claimed on December 2515. Mr. Dam refused to pay the debt pursuant to the judgment of 30 as stated. It appeared that Mr. Dam had substantial debts. Subsequently, on December 2525, Mr. Ang sued. 1. Mr. Dam was declared bankrupt and the court issued an order to protect assets on January 3, 2526. Mr. Ang filed a claim for payment as a creditor and plaintiff against the official receiver. Mr. Dam, the debtor, contested Mr. Ang, the creditor plaintiff, seeking payment of the debt, arguing that the limitation period for enforcement of the judgment was 10 years from the date the court issued the civil judgment for debt collection, as stipulated in the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 Section 94(1). The official receiver, the debtor, agreed with the opinion report submitted to the court that Mr. Ang should not receive payment of the debt as requested. If you were a judge, what order would you make?
When Mr. Ang, the plaintiff, files a bankruptcy lawsuit, the limitation period would be suspended pursuant to Article 175 of the Civil and Commercial Procedure Code. Mr. Ang, the creditor plaintiff, filed the claim during the suspended limitation period, which is not prohibited by the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 Section 94(1). The official receiver, the debtor, agreed with the opinion report submitted to the court that Mr. Ang should not receive payment of the debt as requested.
(Court of Appeal Case No. 2084-2185/2523)56
The plaintiff requested to introduce evidence quickly and fairly. The Central Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiff to introduce evidence as requested. When the plaintiff introduced evidence, the Prosecutor realized that the witness list had not been filed and promptly filed the witness list with the court immediately. However, it was discovered that the witness list had just been completed and submitted to the court later. After the plaintiff completed the introduction of evidence and stated that the case was closed, the Prosecutor announced to the Central Court of Appeal requesting a postponement of the case proceedings, the investigation of the defendant’s evidence. The plaintiff objected that the defendant had no right to file a witness list because the defendant had not filed the witness list at least three days before the hearing date. The defendant intentionally did not file the witness list, as the defendant could file the witness list since February 2526, which was nine days before the hearing date.
Article 88 of the Civil and Commercial Procedure Code stipulates that the filing of a witness list by the defendant is required within the period determined by the court. When the court has not yet determined the witness list,
The Labour Court Act B.E. 2522 stipulates that the claims and filing of witness lists by the parties must be made within the period determined by the Labour Court. When the Labour Court has not yet determined the witness list,