Overview of the Case

This judgment involved the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), and it addressed the ultimate question of whether an application filed by a financial creditor for CIRP should be entertained when it has been alleged to be forbidden by limitation.

The case arose out of the corporate debtor, Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd., defaulting on loans and financial obligations. The financial creditor filed an application under IBC in 2018, which is seven years after the account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) in 2011. The corporate debtor claimed that the application was time-barred, while the financial creditor argued that the acknowledgment in the debtor’s balance sheets extended the limitation period. This case was a landmark one as it cleared the applicability of limitation periods under IBC and the role of acknowledgment of debt in balance sheets in extending such periods.

Facts of the Case

The corporate debtor had obtained several loans and credit facilities from a consortium of banks, including Corporation Bank and Indian Overseas Bank. The said loans were secured by the creation of mortgages and other agreements. The debtor defaulted in repaying these obligations, which resulted in Corporation Bank classifying the account as an NPA on July 8, 2011, and Indian Overseas Bank doing the same on August 5, 2011.

Corporation Bank later assigned the debt to JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd., the financial creditor in the case. Despite several recovery measures, including proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDDBFI Act), the financial creditor filed an application under Section 7 of IBC on March 21, 2018, seeking CIRP against the corporate debtor.

The corporate debtor opposed the application, contending that it was time-barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a three-year limitation period. On the other hand, the financial creditor argued that the limitation period was extended due to the repeated acknowledgment of debt in the corporate debtor’s balance sheets and a one-time settlement (OTS) proposal made in the year 2018.

 Concepts and Provisions Involved

The case primarily involved the following legal concepts and statutory provisions:

1. Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Enables financial creditors to file an application for CIRP on the occurrence of a default.
2. Section 238A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Applies the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, to IBC proceedings.
3. Article 137 of the Limitation Act of 1963: Provides a three-year limitation period for applications for which no specific limitation period is prescribed.
4. Section 18 of the Limitation Act of 1963: Extends the limitation period if there is an acknowledgment of liability in writing before the expiration of the original limitation period.

Issues Before the Court

The main question was whether the CIRP application filed in 2018 was time-barred. This question gave rise to sub-questions, such as:

1. Whether the limitation period of three years under Article 137 of the Limitation Act started in 2011 when the account was classified as NPA.
2. Whether acknowledgment of debt in balance sheets extended the limitation period under Section 18 of the Limitation Act.
3. Whether the IBC enacted in 2016 had revived time-barred debts.

Arguments of the Appellant (Corporate Debtor)

The corporate debtor, represented by the appellant, argued that the application under Section 7 of IBC was barred by limitation since the default occurred in 2011, and the three-year limitation period expired in 2014. They contended that the financial creditor’s reliance on the debtor’s balance sheets was misplaced as balance sheets could not constitute unequivocal acknowledgment of liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act.

Furthermore, the corporate debtor submitted that debts that were time-barred did not get revived under IBC when it came into effect in 2016. The appellant reiterated that IBC is aimed at solving insolvency issues and not for recovery purposes for stale claims. It is also submitted that the financial creditor had already initiated the proceedings under the RDDBFI Act, thereby pointing out that there was an alternative remedy available, and hence, IBC proceedings became redundant.

Arguments by the Respondent (Financial Creditor)

The financial creditor was of the view that under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, the corporate debtor’s acknowledgment of debt in its balance sheets between the years 2011 and 2017 ran the limitation period. 

According to them, IBC is beneficial legislation meant to resolve the issue of insolvency. An acknowledgment of liability in financial documents was good enough to establish the existence of debt and default.

The respondent argued further that the enactment of IBC in 2016 provided a fresh cause of action to creditors, making the application filed in 2018 within the permissible limitation period. 

They further pointed out that the offer made by the corporate debtor fora  one-time settlement (OTS) in 2018 further showed acknowledgment of liability, thus making the application maintainable.

Judgments Referred

The Supreme Court relied on several precedents to decide whether limitation periods applied in IBC proceedings:

• B.K. Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Parag Gupta & Associates (2018)

In this case, it was held that the Limitation Act applies to the IBC proceedings and explained that the limitation period would start running from the date of default.

• Jignesh Shah v. Union of India (2019)

It held that time-barred debts under other laws do not become enforceable under IBC.

• Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank (2019)

The judgment emphasized the fact that acknowledgment of debt must be unequivocal to extend the limitation period.

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the application filed under Section 7 of IBC was barred by limitation. It clarified that under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, the limitation period for such applications was three years from the date of default, which was 2011 in the present case. Since the application was filed in 2018, it was held to be time-barred.

It has rejected the financial creditor’s reliance on Section 18 of the Limitation Act by saying that entries into balance sheets are not any form of unequivocal acknowledgment of liability. Further, IBC’s enactment in the year 2016 can’t revive time-barred debts, for this goes directly contrary to the principles of the Limitation Act, which desires finality and discourages stale claims.

The judgment also pointed out that IBC is not a recovery tool for time-barred debts but a mechanism for resolving genuine insolvency cases. The court reiterated that the limitation period should be strictly followed to ensure fairness to all stakeholders involved.

Conclusion

It sets out as a landmark case that puts forth the law in applying limitation laws in the framework of insolvency under the IBC. This again establishes that IBC is not a tool to recover barred debts, and the limitations period must be followed.

The judgment brings out the importance of creditors acting promptly to resolve issues of insolvency and deters misuse of IBC as a debt recovery tool for stale claims. It also narrows the scope of acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, requiring it to be explicit and unequivocal.

Therefore, judgment brings in a balance of creditor and debtors’ interests so as to meet the IBC results efficiently. This judgment reaffirms the position that financial creditors need to act diligently and on time to preserve integrity in the process of insolvency resolution.