Limitation under IBC: informal emails did not amount to acknowledgment, so the Section 9 application remained time-barred.

An operational creditor's Section 9 IBC application was held time-barred because the debt fell due on 30.12.2016 and the petition was filed after more than three years. Emails relied on to save limitation did not amount to acknowledgment in writing under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, as the 26.03.2017 message only said the matter would be looked into on priority and a resolution was hoped for, and the 27.04.2017 email also did not establish acknowledgment by the corporate debtor. The explanation to Section 18 was found inapplicable, so the plea for extension of limitation failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the operational creditor's application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was barred by limitation and whether the e-mails relied upon constituted acknowledgment in writing so as to extend limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: The application itself stated that the debt fell due on 30.12.2016 and was filed after more than three years. The e-mail dated 26.03.2017 merely stated that the matter would be looked into on priority and that a resolution was hoped for. That communication did not amount to an acknowledgment of liability in terms of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The later e-mail of 27.04.2017 also could not be treated as an acknowledgment by the corporate debtor. The explanation to Section 18 was found inapplicable on the facts.

Conclusion: The application under Section 9 was time-barred and was rightly rejected. The plea for extension of limitation failed.

---