Debt claim upheld as acknowledgments extended limitation period. Appeal dismissed, order certification required.

The Tribunal held that the application under Section 7 of the IBC was not time-barred and maintainable. The Corporate Debtor's acknowledgments of debt extended the limitation period, making the claim valid. The appeal was dismissed, and the Appellant was instructed to provide a certified copy of the order.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the claim is time-barred.
2. Applicability of Section 5A of the IBC, 2016 regarding the definition of Corporate Guarantor.
3. Validity and maintainability of the application under Section 7 of the IBC against the Corporate Guarantor.
4. Acknowledgment of debt and its impact on the limitation period.
5. Relevance and admissibility of certain documents and letters.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the claim is time-barred:
The Adjudicating Authority observed that the claim was not time-barred despite the default date being 03.01.2010 and the application filed on 13.02.2019. The Authority noted that unlike the case before the Supreme Court in Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. & Anr., there were acknowledgments of debt by the Corporate Debtor even in 2018, thus falling within the limitation period.

2. Applicability of Section 5A of the IBC, 2016 regarding the definition of Corporate Guarantor:
The Corporate Debtor argued that it could not be considered a Corporate Debtor under Section 5A because it was a guarantor to an individual, not a corporate person. The Authority rejected this argument, clarifying that Section 5A is merely explanatory and does not exclude the applicability of IBC provisions to the Corporate Debtor who had executed a deed of guarantee.

3. Validity and maintainability of the application under Section 7 of the IBC against the Corporate Guarantor:
The Appellant contended that insolvency proceedings could not be initiated against a Sole Proprietorship Firm, and hence, against the Corporate Guarantor. The Authority held that M/s Surana Metals Ltd., being a registered company, falls within the definition of a Corporate Debtor, making the application under Section 7 maintainable.

4. Acknowledgment of debt and its impact on the limitation period:
The Appellant argued that letters issued by the Principal Borrower did not constitute acknowledgment of debt. The Authority found that the Corporate Debtor had acknowledged its debt on multiple occasions, including letters dated 16.09.2010, 03.03.2012, 27.05.2015, 24.10.2016, and 08.12.2018, thus extending the limitation period.

5. Relevance and admissibility of certain documents and letters:
The Appellant claimed that the letter dated 08.12.2018 was privileged and inadmissible. The Authority dismissed this argument, noting that the letter was an acknowledgment of debt and relevant for the case. The Authority also dismissed the argument that the letter dated 03.12.2019, not produced before the NCLT, should not be relied upon.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the application under Section 7 of the IBC was not time-barred and was maintainable. The Corporate Debtor had acknowledged the debt multiple times, extending the limitation period. The appeal was dismissed, and the Appellant was directed to furnish a certified copy of the impugned order.

---