Appeal Dismissed: Tribunal Affirms Time-Barred Ruling on CIRP Application; Debt Acknowledgment Argument Rejected.

The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Adjudicating Authority's decision that the Application for initiating CIRP under Section 7 of the I&B Code was time-barred. The Tribunal concluded that the Application, filed on 12th September 2018, exceeded the limitation period starting from the default date of 30th April 2013. The Appellant's argument regarding acknowledgment of debt was rejected due to lack of valid written acknowledgment within the statutory timeframe. The Tribunal upheld the decision, citing no legal basis to challenge the Application's rejection under the I&B Code and Limitation Act.

---

---

Issues:
1. Application for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 7 of I&B Code.
2. Barred by limitation based on the date of default and acknowledgment of debt.

Analysis:
1. The Appellate Tribunal heard an appeal arising from an Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority rejecting an Application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (I&B) Code. The Appellant Bank provided credit facilities to the Respondent, who defaulted on repayments, leading to the rejection of a Revival Proposal by the Consortium of Lenders. The Respondent's account was exited from the CDR package due to defaults, and the Appellant initiated SARFAESI action. The key issue was the rejection of the Application by the Adjudicating Authority, primarily based on the limitation period from the date of default.

2. The Adjudicating Authority determined that the Application was time-barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, considering the date of default as 30th April 2013 and the filing date of the Application on 12th September 2018. The Tribunal upheld this decision, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in B.K. Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Parag Gupta and Associates, emphasizing the date of default as crucial for calculating the limitation period under the I&B Code. The Respondent argued that the Appellant's reliance on acknowledgment of debt was unfounded, as the Respondent exited the Master Restructuring Agreement in January 2015, rendering any acknowledgments therein ineffective for extending the limitation period.

3. The Tribunal noted that the Appellant failed to provide written acknowledgment of debt by the Respondent within the limitation period. Despite references to a One Time Settlement proposal by the Respondent in June 2015, the Tribunal found no valid acknowledgment in writing within the statutory timeframe. Additionally, the Tribunal distinguished other judgments where clear written acknowledgments extended the limitation period, which was absent in the present case. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Adjudicating Authority's decision, as no legal grounds were found to interfere with the rejection of the Application as time-barred under the I&B Code and the Limitation Act.

---