Limitation and written acknowledgment: no fresh limitation where alleged acknowledgment lacks credible admissible documentary support.

Issue concerns whether a Section 9 insolvency petition filed on 29.03.2019 is time-barred where debt fell due on 22.11.2012 and an alleged written acknowledgment dated 31.03.2016 exists. The legal principle applied is that a debtor's written acknowledgment must be signed and supported by admissible evidence before the expiry of the limitation period to create a fresh limitation period under the Limitation Act; unverified books of account or unsubstantiated balance confirmations do not qualify as such acknowledgment. Outcome: the alleged acknowledgment was not established by credible admissible documentary evidence and the Section 9 application is barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Section 9 application filed on 29.03.2019 is barred by limitation despite an alleged acknowledgement of debt as on 31.03.2016.

Analysis: Legal framework applicable includes Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiation of CIRP by an operational creditor, Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 governing such applications, and Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 concerning written acknowledgment and the commencement of a fresh period of limitation. The admitted date on which the debt fell due is 22.11.2012; the Section 9 application was filed on 29.03.2019. Authorities considered require that an acknowledgment in writing, signed by the debtor and supported by admissible evidence, must occur before the prescribed limitation period expires to revive or commence a fresh limitation period. Books of account or unverified balance confirmations do not suffice as acknowledged written admissions unless supported and verified in accordance with the law of evidence. Where the pleadings themselves state the original date of default and no credible written acknowledgment predating the expiry of limitation is placed on record, Section 18 cannot be invoked to extend the limitation period for a Section 9 application.

Conclusion: The Section 9 application filed on 29.03.2019 is barred by limitation; the alleged acknowledgment dated 31.03.2016 is not established by credible admissible documentary evidence and does not revive or extend the limitation period under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The appeal is dismissed and the impugned order rejecting the Section 9 application on limitation grounds is affirmed.

---