Limitation in CIRP claims turns on default or NPA date; documentary proof of debt cannot be rejected for lack of acknowledgement.

In CIRP claim adjudication, limitation is assessed from the date of default or NPA, not from the loan agreement date. A Form-C claim supported by loan documents, hypothecation agreements, guarantees and account statements cannot be rejected as time-barred merely because no separate acknowledgement of debt is produced, where the record otherwise shows existing debt and default. The rejection of the claim on an erroneous limitation analysis and an unwarranted insistence on acknowledgement of debt was therefore unsustainable and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Resolution Professional was justified in rejecting the applicant's Form-C claim as time-barred for want of acknowledgement of debt.

Analysis: The application was supported by the loan documents, hypothecation agreements, guarantees and statement of accounts. The claim was filed within the CIRP claim period. For limitation, the date of default and NPA was treated as the relevant starting point, and not the date of the loan agreement. In the absence of a written acknowledgement of debt, the claim could not be rejected when the record otherwise showed an existing debt and default. The rejection communications proceeded on an erroneous understanding of limitation and on an unwarranted insistence on acknowledgement of debt as a condition precedent.

Conclusion: The rejection of the claim as time-barred was unsustainable and was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: In CIRP claim adjudication, limitation is to be assessed with reference to the date of default or NPA, and a claim supported by documentary proof of debt cannot be rejected merely because a separate acknowledgement of debt is not produced.

---