Acknowledgment of debt renews limitation while guarantor resolution does not erase the principal borrower's liability.

A section 7 IBC application was treated as maintainable against the principal borrower even after a resolution plan in the corporate guarantor's insolvency process, because satisfaction of liabilities in the guarantor's proceedings did not by itself extinguish the borrower's independent debt unless expressly discharged. The tribunal also treated the petition as within limitation, relying on written acknowledgments and settlement-related records showing subsisting liability within the limitation period, which renewed time under the Limitation Act, 1963. On that basis, the application was admitted, CIRP was initiated, and moratorium and related insolvency directions followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the financial creditor's application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was maintainable against the corporate debtor despite the resolution plan approved in the corporate guarantor's insolvency process. (ii) Whether the application was within limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the financial creditor's application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was maintainable against the corporate debtor despite the resolution plan approved in the corporate guarantor's insolvency process.

Analysis: The approved resolution plan of the corporate guarantor extinguished the guarantor's corporate guarantees and related liabilities, but it did not extinguish the independent liability of the principal borrower unless that was specifically provided. The liability of the surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, and recovery from the guarantor does not, by itself, discharge the principal borrower beyond the amount actually recovered. The tribunal also accepted that the balance outstanding remained due after giving credit for the amount realised under the guarantor's resolution plan.

Conclusion: The section 7 application was maintainable against the corporate debtor, and the objection based on prior recovery from the corporate guarantor failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the application was within limitation.

Analysis: The original default occurred in 2012, but the record showed subsequent written acknowledgments and settlement/cancellation arrangements acknowledging the subsisting liability. Such acknowledgment, made within the limitation period, gives rise to a fresh period of limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963. The tribunal therefore treated the application as filed within time.

Conclusion: The application was within limitation.

Final Conclusion: The tribunal admitted the section 7 application, initiated the corporate insolvency resolution process, appointed the interim resolution professional, and declared moratorium and other consequential directions under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Ratio Decidendi: A written acknowledgment of subsisting debt within the limitation period renews limitation, and satisfaction of a claim against a corporate guarantor does not extinguish the independent liability of the principal borrower unless the debt is expressly discharged.

---