Limitation barred insolvency claim as no valid acknowledgment revived the debt or extended time under the Limitation Act.

A Section 7 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was held time-barred because the account had already become non-performing, the right to sue arose on default, and limitation under Article 137 had expired before the BIFR reference. The later dismissal of the BIFR proceedings did not create a fresh cause of action. No valid written acknowledgment signed by the debtor was shown to extend limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, and restructuring material, annual reports, or assignment-related documents did not revive the stale debt. Proceedings under the Code cannot be used to enforce a claim already barred by limitation, so the insolvency petition remained dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Section 7 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was barred by limitation and whether the period spent in BIFR proceedings or any alleged acknowledgment of liability extended the limitation period.

Analysis: The account was declared NPA on 28.02.2002 and the right to sue accrued on default. The Court held that the limitation period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 had already expired long before the BIFR reference and that the later dismissal of the BIFR reference did not furnish a fresh cause of action. The Court further held that no valid acknowledgment of liability in writing signed by the party against whom the claim was made was shown so as to attract Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The reliance on restructuring, annual reports, and the alleged assignment-related materials did not revive the stale debt. The Court also applied the principle that proceedings under the Code are subject to limitation and cannot be used to enforce a time-barred claim.

Conclusion: The Section 7 application was time-barred and the dismissal of the insolvency petition by the Adjudicating Authority was ; the appeal failed.

---