Limitation under insolvency law turns on valid acknowledgment; a credit note without admitted liability does not extend time.

Proper board authorisation and a substantially compliant power of attorney were held sufficient, so the filing objection did not defeat the insolvency application. The more significant issue was limitation: the default was treated as having occurred in August 2015, and the section 9 application was filed beyond three years. A credit note dated April 2017 was not an acknowledgment because it did not admit a subsisting liability or show an intention to pay the debt. Without valid acknowledgment, limitation was not extended, and the petition remained barred by time.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the objection to the applicant's authorisation and power of attorney warranted rejection of the insolvency application. (ii) Whether the application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was barred by limitation, and whether the credit note constituted acknowledgment sufficient to extend limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the objection to the applicant's authorisation and power of attorney warranted rejection of the insolvency application.

Analysis: The board resolution authorising the filing of the application was found to be proper. The power of attorney contained the substantive contents required for the prescribed form, and strict insistence on formal defects was held not to justify rejection where the essential authorisation and appearance requirements were substantially complied with.

Conclusion: The objection to authorisation was rejected and did not defeat the application.

Issue (ii): Whether the application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was barred by limitation, and whether the credit note constituted acknowledgment sufficient to extend limitation.

Analysis: The default was traced to 28 August 2015, while the application was filed beyond three years thereafter. The credit note dated 1 April 2017 did not amount to acknowledgment because it did not admit a subsisting liability or convey an intention to pay the alleged debt. In the absence of a valid acknowledgment, a fresh period of limitation could not commence from the credit note.

Conclusion: The application was barred by limitation and could not be maintained.

Final Conclusion: The insolvency petition failed on limitation, and the procedural objection regarding authorisation did not alter the ultimate dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi: An acknowledgment extending limitation must admit a subsisting liability and evince an intention to continue the jural relationship in respect of the debt; a document that merely records a reconciliation or adjustment without such admission does not restart limitation.

---