Limitation under the IBC: Section 5 condonation, Article 137 and balance-sheet acknowledgment can support admission of a Section 7 petition.

The note states that the Limitation Act applies to IBC proceedings through Section 238A, with limitation for a Section 7 application governed by Article 137 from the date of default. It further notes that Section 18 acknowledgment, including entries in balance sheets, may extend limitation, and that Section 5 condonation remains available where sufficient cause is shown. On the facts discussed, continued recovery efforts, acknowledged liability, and absence of mala fides or gross negligence supported a liberal approach to delay, resulting in condonation and admission of the insolvency petition.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay is maintainable in a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; (ii) whether the petitioner established sufficient cause to condone the delay and admit the insolvency petition.

Issue (i): Whether an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay is maintainable in a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 apply to proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by virtue of Section 238A. For applications under Section 7, the period of limitation is governed by Article 137, and the right to apply accrues on default. The decision also proceeds on the basis that Section 18 can operate where there is a valid acknowledgment of liability, including in balance sheets, and that Section 5 remains available for condonation where sufficient cause is shown.

Conclusion: Yes. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is maintainable in a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner established sufficient cause to condone the delay and admit the insolvency petition.

Analysis: The delay was considered in the context of the petitioner's continued recovery efforts, the uncertainty that existed regarding the applicability of limitation to insolvency proceedings, and the acknowledgment reflected in the corporate debtor's balance sheet. The Tribunal applied a liberal approach to sufficient cause, especially where public money was involved and no mala fides or gross negligence were found. On that basis, the delay was condoned and the debt and default were treated as established for admission purposes.

Conclusion: Yes. Sufficient cause was shown and the delay was condoned; the insolvency petition was admitted.

Final Conclusion: The petition under Section 7 was held maintainable despite delay, the delay was condoned on sufficient cause, and corporate insolvency resolution process was directed to commence against the corporate debtor.

Ratio Decidendi: Proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 are subject to the Limitation Act, 1963, limitation for a Section 7 application is governed by Article 137, and delay may be condoned under Section 5 where sufficient cause, including legally relevant acknowledgment and bona fide pursuit of remedies, is shown.

---