Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was barred by limitation, and whether the written acknowledgments and reschedulement letters extended the period of limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Analysis: The Appellant contended that the default and NPA dated back beyond three years, so the Section 7 application was time-barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Respondent relied on repeated written requests for settlement, reschedulement, and balance confirmations made before expiry of the original limitation period. The Tribunal treated those documents as valid acknowledgments in writing signed by the Corporate Debtor. Applying Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, it held that a fresh period of limitation runs from the date of each acknowledgment and that the repeated acknowledgments kept the claim alive within limitation.
Conclusion: The limitation objection failed. The Section 7 application was held to be within time and the admission of the insolvency petition was sustained.
Final Conclusion: The appeal was found to be without merit, and the insolvency admission order, including initiation of CIRP and moratorium, was affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi: A written acknowledgment of liability signed before expiry of the prescribed period under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 gives rise to a fresh period of limitation, and such acknowledgments can render a Section 7 insolvency application within time.