Limitation in insolvency applications: a recovery decree does not revive default or extend time under the Limitation Act.

Limitation for a Section 7 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code application is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act as applied by Section 238A, so time runs from the date of default and can be extended only by a legally valid acknowledgment or other recognised mode under the Limitation Act. No valid acknowledgment was shown, so the debt was already time-barred when the insolvency application was filed. A recovery decree did not amount to acknowledgment, did not create a fresh default date, and could not revive limitation or convert insolvency into a substitute for execution. The application was therefore rejected as time-barred and the CIRP initiation set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was barred by limitation. (ii) Whether the decree passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 17 August 2018 could shift the date of default so as to bring the application within limitation.

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

Analysis: The period of limitation for an application under Section 7 is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as applied by Section 238A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Time begins to run from the date of default, and it can be extended only in the manner recognised by the Limitation Act, including a valid acknowledgment in writing under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. No such acknowledgment was shown. The debt had already become time-barred long before the insolvency application was filed.

Conclusion: The application under Section 7 was barred by limitation and the finding is against the financial creditor and in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the decree passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 17 August 2018 could shift the date of default so as to bring the application within limitation.

Analysis: A decree obtained in recovery proceedings does not amount to an acknowledgment of liability by the corporate debtor for the purpose of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The decree only makes the debt enforceable in execution; it does not create a fresh date of default or revive limitation for a fresh insolvency application. The corporate insolvency process cannot be used as a substitute for execution of a decree or as a recovery mechanism.

Conclusion: The decree could not shift the date of default, and the application remained time-barred; this issue is decided in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The insolvency application was correctly rejected on limitation, and the impugned order initiating corporate insolvency resolution process was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: For an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, limitation runs from the date of default and is extended only by a legally valid acknowledgment or other recognised mode under the Limitation Act; a decree in recovery proceedings does not revive or shift the date of default.

---