Acknowledgement of debt and settlement proposals extend limitation, enabling timely insolvency petitions and sustaining admission.

Acknowledgements of debt and subsequent one time settlement proposals operate as sufficient acknowledgement under the Limitation Act to extend limitation, and therefore a delayed insolvency petition filed after such acknowledgements is not time barred; this supports sustaining admission. Where substituted service was effected, the corporate debtor appeared, sought time but repeatedly failed to file a reply or appear thereafter, and the adjudicator afforded opportunities; such procedural history does not amount to a breach of natural justice and does not vitiate ex parte admission. Operative effect: acknowledgements and OTS can extend limitation and proper substituted service plus opportunity defeats natural justice objection.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Section 7 application was barred by limitation; (ii) Whether admission of the Section 7 application and initiation of CIRP in absence of the Corporate Debtor (ex parte) violated the principle of natural justice.

Issue (i): Whether the Section 7 application was time-barred.

Analysis: The application's Part IV pleaded facts and annexed correspondence including demand notices, letters of acknowledgment dated 02.11.2015 and 18.11.2015, and multiple one time settlement (OTS) proposals dated 05.01.2018, 28.09.2020, 23.07.2024 and 23.08.2024. The Financial Creditor itself underwent CIRP between 03.02.2019 and 07.06.2021 and benefit of intervening orders (including the referenced Suo Moto proceedings) was available. The pleaded acknowledgments and subsequent OTS proposals fall within the scope of extension of limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act and provide sufficient material to hold that the filing on 01.03.2025 was within extended limitation.

Conclusion: The Section 7 application was not barred by limitation; conclusion in favour of the Respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether admission of the Section 7 application after ex parte proceedings violated the principle of natural justice.

Analysis: Substituted service was effected by publication and compliance was filed. Counsel for the Corporate Debtor entered appearance on 22.08.2025 and sought time to file vakalatnama and reply and again sought adjournment on 16.09.2025; opportunities to file a reply were granted. No reply was filed and there was absence of appearance on subsequent dates leading to ex parte proceedings. The record shows repeated opportunities were afforded but not availed.

Conclusion: There was no violation of the principle of natural justice; conclusion in favour of the Respondent.

Final Conclusion: On the materials placed before the Tribunal, the Adjudicating Authority's findings that debt and default were proved and that the Section 7 application was timely filed are upheld; the admission order is sustained and the appeal is dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Acknowledgments of debt and subsequent OTS proposals constitute sufficient acknowledgement under Section 18 of the Limitation Act to extend the period of limitation for filing a Section 7 insolvency application.

---