Insolvency limitation and acknowledgment: post-default correspondence, part-payments, and balance-sheet entries can extend time for section 7 admission.

An application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was examined for limitation, acknowledgment of liability, and admission requirements. The Tribunal treated post-default correspondence, a settlement proposal, part-payments, and balance-sheet disclosures as written acknowledgments showing subsisting liability and extending limitation under the Limitation Act. It also found that financial debt and default were supported by records and that the proposed interim resolution professional had furnished the required consent and disclosures. On that basis, the petition was admitted, CIRP was initiated, moratorium was declared, and the proposed interim resolution professional was appointed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was barred by limitation. (ii) Whether the corporate debtor's correspondence, part-payment, and balance-sheet disclosures amounted to acknowledgment of liability extending limitation. (iii) Whether the requirements for admission of the section 7 application were satisfied, including existence of default and a valid proposed interim resolution professional.

Issue (i): Whether the application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The period of default was pleaded to be September 2013, but the record also showed subsequent acknowledgments and part-payments. The Tribunal noted that the debt had earlier been pursued before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and that subsequent communications by the corporate debtor, including the reply to notice, the one-time settlement proposal, and later balance-sheet disclosures, were relevant to limitation.

Conclusion: The application was not barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the corporate debtor's correspondence, part-payment, and balance-sheet disclosures amounted to acknowledgment of liability extending limitation.

Analysis: The Tribunal relied on the legal effect of part-payment and written acknowledgments, including the reply dated January 5, 2015, the settlement proposal dated March 3, 2017, the letter dated June 19, 2017, and the audited financial disclosures. These materials were treated as evidence showing subsisting liability and acknowledgment within the meaning of the Limitation Act.

Conclusion: The materials constituted acknowledgment of liability and supported extension of limitation.

Issue (iii): Whether the requirements for admission of the section 7 application were satisfied, including existence of default and a valid proposed interim resolution professional.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that financial debt and default were supported by bank records and other documents, and that the proposed interim resolution professional had furnished the requisite written consent and disclosure. The objections regarding suppression and additional documents were rejected, and the additional materials were taken on record.

Conclusion: The section 7 application satisfied the statutory requirements and was admitted, with initiation of CIRP and appointment of the interim resolution professional.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal admitted the insolvency petition, initiated the corporate insolvency resolution process, appointed the proposed interim resolution professional, and declared moratorium in accordance with the Code.

Ratio Decidendi: For admission under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Adjudicating Authority must be satisfied, on the basis of material evidence, that a financial debt and default exist and that the application is complete, while subsequent written acknowledgments and part-payments may extend limitation.

---