Existence of debt and default determines insolvency admission; disputes on exact quantum do not defeat admission and limitation may be reset by acknowledgments.

Whether a financial creditor's claim meets the statutory threshold for initiating corporate insolvency was assessed by examining facility documents, admitted ledger entries and accepted methodology for computing delayed payment charges; the authority determined existence of debt and default from records and held that disputes over exact quantum do not defeat admission where the threshold is crossed, outcome: threshold met. Whether the petition was time-barred was decided by treating balance-sheet entries as acknowledgments that reset limitation and by applying exclusion of the pandemic period to recompute limitation, outcome: petition within time and not barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the claim filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 meets the threshold limit under Section 4; (ii) Whether the Section 7 application is barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the financial creditor's claim satisfies the statutory threshold for initiation of CIRP under Section 4.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined competing calculations from the parties, the facility/sanction letter, assignment deed and corporate debtor's balance sheets and ledgers. It considered the admitted entries in the corporate debtor's financial statements, the facility terms providing for delayed payment charges, and precedent establishing that at the Section 7 admission stage the Adjudicating Authority must ascertain existence of debt and default rather than decide exact quantum. The Tribunal found the financial creditor's methodology consistent with the facility agreement and that delayed payment charges and interest as calculated by the financial creditor push the outstanding debt above the statutory threshold.

Conclusion: The claim meets the threshold limit; this issue is decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the Section 7 petition is time-barred.

Analysis: The Tribunal considered the date of default, acknowledgments in the corporate debtor's balance sheets, Section 18 of the Limitation Act and the Supreme Court orders excluding the period during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal accepted that the balance-sheet entries constitute acknowledgments that reset limitation and that the exclusion period together with the fresh limitation computation renders the petition filed within time.

Conclusion: The petition is not barred by limitation; this issue is decided against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: On the decided issues, the appeal lacks merit and the impugned admission under Section 7 is upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: For admission under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 the Adjudicating Authority's task is to ascertain existence of debt and default from available records; disputes over the exact quantum of debt are not a ground to refuse admission where the statutory threshold is crossed and acknowledgments in balance sheets can extend limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act.

---