Limitation and insolvency filing: repeated acknowledgments extend time, and pending winding-up proceedings do not bar section 7 action.

Repeated written acknowledgments of liability, including loan renewals, debenture conversions, revival proposals, balance sheet entries and lender correspondence, were treated as sufficient to extend limitation for a section 7 IBC application. The Tribunal also held that pendency of SICA proceedings or winding-up related proceedings did not bar initiation of CIRP where no winding-up order had been passed before filing. A missing separately pleaded date of default in one form column was treated as a curable, non-fatal defect because the default particulars were otherwise identifiable from the application and annexures. The application was admitted, moratorium commenced, and an interim resolution professional was appointed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was barred by limitation in view of the earlier defaults and the date of default; (ii) Whether the application was not maintainable because of proceedings under SICA and pending winding-up related proceedings before the High Court; (iii) Whether the application was liable to be rejected for want of specific date of default in the form and other alleged defects.

Issue (i): Whether the application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was barred by limitation in view of the earlier defaults and the date of default?

Analysis: The default was treated as occurring on the last repayment date, but the record showed repeated renewals, conversion of loans into debentures, revival proposals, balance sheet admissions, correspondence with lenders, and other acknowledgments of liability. These communications were made within the relevant period and were sufficient to extend limitation. The Tribunal also relied on the width of section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and treated the later proposals and admissions as further acknowledgments and as an enforceable promise to pay.

Conclusion: The application was not barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the application was not maintainable because of proceedings under SICA and pending winding-up related proceedings before the High Court?

Analysis: The pendency of proceedings under SICA and the reference for winding up did not, by itself, bar initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Tribunal noted that no winding-up order had been shown to have been passed before the filing of the section 7 application, and mere pendency of such proceedings was held not to attract the statutory bar.

Conclusion: The application was maintainable.

Issue (iii): Whether the application was liable to be rejected for want of specific date of default in the form and other alleged defects?

Analysis: The default particulars were found from the application and annexures, and the absence of a separately pleaded date in one column was treated as a curable or non-fatal defect. The proposed interim resolution professional was found eligible, and the application was otherwise complete.

Conclusion: The objection was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The financial creditor's application was admitted, corporate insolvency resolution process was commenced, moratorium was imposed, and an interim resolution professional was appointed.

Ratio Decidendi: Repeated written acknowledgments of liability made before expiry of limitation extend the limitation period, and the mere pendency of winding-up or SICA-related proceedings does not bar a section 7 insolvency application unless a winding-up order has already been passed.

---