Acknowledgment of liability by corporate guarantor extends limitation and supports Section 7 insolvency admission when default is established.

A written communication from a corporate guarantor acknowledging the borrower's default and seeking time from the creditor was treated as an acknowledgment of liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, so limitation for the Section 7 IBC petition ran afresh from that date and the petition was not time-barred. The Tribunal further held that the guarantee-backed obligations constituted financial debt, and that non-payment, account classification as non-performing, recall of facilities, and invocation of the guarantee established default. On that basis, the Section 7 petition was maintainable and the corporate insolvency resolution process was directed to commence with moratorium and appointment of the proposed interim resolution professional.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the corporate debtor's letter dated 27.09.2017 constituted an acknowledgment of liability so as to extend limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. (ii) Whether the debt arising from the corporate guarantee amounted to financial debt and default, warranting admission of the petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Issue (i): Whether the corporate debtor's letter dated 27.09.2017 constituted an acknowledgment of liability so as to extend limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The letter of 27.09.2017 recorded that the principal borrower had defaulted, referred to the invocation of the corporate guarantee, and requested that insolvency action not be initiated while time was sought to place a proposal before the creditor. Such a written communication was treated as a conscious admission of a subsisting liability. The Tribunal held that acknowledgment need not contain an express promise to pay, and that the corporate guarantor, whose liability is coextensive with that of the principal borrower, could not avoid the consequence of the written admission. Limitation was therefore computed afresh from the date of acknowledgment.

Conclusion: The letter dated 27.09.2017 extended limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the petition was not time-barred.

Issue (ii): Whether the debt arising from the corporate guarantee amounted to financial debt and default, warranting admission of the petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The facilities granted to the principal borrower were secured by the corporate guarantee executed by the corporate debtor. The Tribunal found that the guarantee covered repayment obligations under the financial facilities, and the borrower's non-payment, classification of the account as non-performing, recall of the facilities, and invocation of the guarantee established default. The liability under the guarantee was treated as falling within the definition of financial debt, and the requirements for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process were held satisfied.

Conclusion: The petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was maintainable and deserved admission.

Final Conclusion: Limitation was held to have been extended by written acknowledgment, the guarantee liability was treated as financial debt, and corporate insolvency resolution process was directed to commence with moratorium and appointment of the proposed interim resolution professional.

Ratio Decidendi: A written communication by a corporate guarantor acknowledging the borrower's default and seeking time from the creditor can amount to acknowledgment of liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, thereby extending limitation for a Section 7 insolvency petition, and the guarantor's liability remains coextensive and enforceable as financial debt when default is established.

---