Limitation and financial debt classification must be tested on the claim's facts before summary rejection.

A claim arising from land allotment and alleged secured charge was treated as governed by Article 62 of the Limitation Act rather than the residuary Article 137, so it could not be rejected as time-barred on that basis. The document also notes that lease-related or hire-purchase liability may, depending on the facts, fall within the statutory concept of financial debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The IRP was therefore required to examine the claim on merits instead of summarily rejecting it as outside the financial creditor category.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the claim could be rejected as time-barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 or was governed by Article 62 of that Act. (ii) Whether the claimant's lease-related dues could be treated as a claim by a financial creditor under Section 5(8)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Issue (i): Whether the claim could be rejected as time-barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 or was governed by Article 62 of that Act.

Analysis: The claim arose from land allotted by the authority and the order proceeded on the basis that the claim related to a secured charge over the land. In that context, the shorter residuary period under Article 137 was held not to apply. The applicable period was treated as the 12-year period under Article 62.

Conclusion: The claim was not to be rejected as time-barred.

Issue (ii): Whether the claimant's lease-related dues could be treated as a claim by a financial creditor under Section 5(8)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The claim was required to be examined on the footing that lease or hire-purchase liability may fall within the statutory concept of financial debt where the factual basis so warrants. The IRP was directed to consider the claim on merits instead of rejecting it outright as a claim by an entity other than a financial creditor.

Conclusion: The claim was directed to be examined and not rejected on the ground that it was outside the category of financial creditor.

Final Conclusion: The IRP was required to consider the claim on merits and could not summarily reject it either as time-barred or as not falling within the financial creditor category.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a claim arises from lease-related liability associated with land over which the claimant asserts a secured charge, it cannot be summarily rejected on residuary limitation grounds and must be examined under the limitation provision applicable to enforcement of rights in immovable property, while also being tested against the statutory definition of financial debt on its facts.

---