Limitation for Section 7 insolvency proceedings can extend through acknowledgements of liability and recovery certificates, while substitution may continue the appeal.

Proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 were not time-barred where the record contained later acknowledgements of liability, including balance-sheet entries, one-time settlement proposals and email admissions of default; under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, such acknowledgements extend limitation, and the recovery certificate also supplied a fresh cause of action. The objection that the appeal could not continue after substitution of the deceased appellant's legal heir was rejected because substitution had already been permitted and the substituted appellant was prosecuting the pending litigation in continuation of the original claim. On those grounds, the challenge to admission of CIRP failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appeal could fail on the ground that the substitution of the legal heir to pursue the proceedings was not maintainable; (ii) whether the Section 7 insolvency application was barred by limitation in view of the recovery certificate and the alleged earlier default.

Issue (i): whether the appeal could fail on the ground that the substitution of the legal heir to pursue the proceedings was not maintainable.

Analysis: The substitution had already been permitted in the appellate proceedings and was not shown to have been successfully challenged. The substituted appellant was proceeding in continuation of the pending litigation initiated by the original appellant, not asserting a fresh and independent cause. The objection that the appeal could not continue after substitution was therefore rejected.

Conclusion: The objection to maintainability on the ground of substitution was rejected and the appeal was held to be maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether the Section 7 insolvency application was barred by limitation in view of the recovery certificate and the alleged earlier default.

Analysis: The limitation plea was negatived because the record showed subsequent acknowledgements of liability, including balance-sheet entries, proposals for one-time settlement, and email communications admitting default. Under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, such acknowledgement extends limitation. The recovery certificate also supplied a fresh cause of action, and Section 238A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 makes the Limitation Act applicable to insolvency proceedings. On that basis, the Section 7 application filed on the strength of the last acknowledged default was within time.

Conclusion: The Section 7 application was not barred by limitation and the challenge on this ground failed.

Final Conclusion: The admission of the corporate insolvency resolution process was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: For proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, a written acknowledgement of liability or default before expiry of the limitation period extends time under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and a recovery certificate may also furnish a fresh cause of action.

---