Limitation revived by repeated debt acknowledgements; insolvency petition admitted once debt and default were established.

Repeated written acknowledgements of debt, including correspondence, balance confirmations, part payments, and one-time settlement proposals, were treated as sufficient to attract section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and to start a fresh limitation period. On that basis, the section 7 insolvency application was not time-barred. The Tribunal also noted sanctioned loan facilities, executed security documents, admitted liability, and default in repayment as establishing financial debt and default. With debt and default shown and an interim resolution professional named, the petition was admitted, corporate insolvency resolution process was initiated, and moratorium consequences followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was barred by limitation; (ii) Whether the existence of debt and default justified admission of the insolvency petition and commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process.

Issue (i): Whether the application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The debt account was treated as having been repeatedly acknowledged by the corporate debtor through correspondence, balance confirmations, part payments, and one-time settlement proposals. These acknowledgements were held sufficient to attract section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and to give rise to a fresh period of limitation from the dates of such acknowledgements. The claim was therefore not treated as time-barred.

Conclusion: The application was held to be within limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the existence of debt and default justified admission of the insolvency petition and commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process.

Analysis: The record showed sanctioned loan facilities, executed security documents, admitted liability, default in repayment, and material supporting the financial debt owed to the petitioner. On being satisfied that debt and default were established and that the proposed interim resolution professional was named, the Tribunal admitted the petition and directed initiation of the statutory moratorium and other insolvency measures.

Conclusion: The petition was admitted and corporate insolvency resolution process was initiated against the corporate debtor.

Final Conclusion: The insolvency application succeeded, limitation was negatived on the basis of continuing acknowledgements, and the corporate debtor was brought under insolvency resolution proceedings with moratorium and appointment of an interim resolution professional.

Ratio Decidendi: Repeated written acknowledgements of debt and part payments made before expiry of limitation extend the limitation period under section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and a section 7 insolvency application is admissible when debt and default are otherwise established.

---