Holding

A balance‑sheet entry coupled with the auditor’s note and an OTS proposal constitutes a clear acknowledgment of debt, thereby invoking Section 18 of the Limitation Act and validating the admission of the Section 7 application.

Summary

The appellant, a suspended director of the corporate debtor, challenged the admission of a Section 7 application initiating a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) by UCO Bank, arguing that the debtor's balance‑sheet entries did not constitute a clear, specific acknowledgment of debt required under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) held that the balance‑sheet note, the auditor’s report, and a One‑Time Settlement (OTS) letter together amounted to an unequivocal acknowledgment of liability, thereby resetting the limitation period. The Supreme Court examined the statutory scheme of the IBC, Section 238A, and the applicability of Section 18, relying on precedents such as Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. Bishal Jaiswal and Dena Bank v. C. Shivakumar Reddy. It affirmed that a balance‑sheet prepared under the Companies Act need not name each creditor, and that an implicit acknowledgment of a subsisting liability suffices to invoke Section 18. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, upholding the earlier orders admitting the CIRP.

Issues considered

Whether a balance‑sheet entry, without expressly naming the creditor, can be deemed a specific acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for the purpose of extending the limitation period in a Section 7 IBC application.
Whether the One‑Time Settlement proposal constitutes an acknowledgment of liability sufficient to attract Section 18.
Whether the provisions of the Limitation Act, particularly Section 18, apply to proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code via Section 238A.

Legislation cited

Companies Act, 2013s. 129, s. Schedule III
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016s. 238A, s. 7
Limitation Act, 1963s. 18

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether specific and clear acknowledgement of debt by the Corporate Debtor in its balance sheet is necessary while considering limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Headnotes† Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.238A – s.18 of acknowledge of debt in the balance sheet entries necessary while computing limitation u/s.18 Limitation Act r/w s.238A of the IBC: Held: It was contended by the Appellant that there is no unequivocal, unambiguous and specific acknowledgement of debt owed to Respondent – Financial Creditor

Subjects

Acknowledgement of debtLimitationCIRPAdmission of CIRPBalance‑SheetEntries in Balance Sheet

Judgment

[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1462 : 2024 INSC 810

Vidyasagar Prasad
v.
UCO Bank & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No. 1031 of 2022)
22 October 2024
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether specific and clear acknowledgement of debt by the
Corporate Debtor in its balance sheet is necessary while considering
limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Headnotes†
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.238A – s.18 of
Limitation Act – No specific and clear acknowledge of debt in
the balance sheet entries necessary while computing limitation
u/s.18 Limitation Act r/w s.238A of the IBC:
Held: It was contended by the Appellant that there is no
unequivocal, unambiguous and specific acknowledgement of debt
owed to Respondent – Financial Creditor in the balance sheet
entries of Corporate Debtor for the years 2017 and 2019 – The
CIRP was admitted by the NCLT on the ground that there is
acknowledgement of debt in the balance sheet entries as well
as Auditors Report for the year ending 31.01.2017 – The order
of admission of CIRP affirmed by the NCLAT – The Appellant
contended that the name of Financial Creditor in question is not
specifically mentioned in the relied upon entry in the balance
sheet – It was contended that in the absence of clear demarcation
as to what the Corporate Debtor owes to the Financial Creditor
in question, the balance sheet entries cannot be relied on for the
purpose of extending the period of limitation in terms of Section
18 of the Limitation Act – By relying on Asset Reconstruction
Company (India) Ltd. v. Bishal Jaiswal [2021] 3 SCR 524, the Civil
Appeal filed by the Appellant was dismissed – The contention of
the Financial Creditor that there was no compulsion for Companies
to make any particular admissions in the balance sheet was
accepted by the Court – The entry made in the balance sheet

* Author
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1463

Vidyasagar Prasad v. UCO Bank & Anr.

coupled with the note of the auditor of the Appellant clearly
amounts to acknowledgement of the liability – The Court noted
that the Corporate Debtor’s proposal of One Time Settlement
(OTS) also fortifies the case against the Appellant – The Civil
Appeal dismissed accordingly. [Paras 8-13]

List of Acts
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Limitation Act, 1963

List of Keywords
Acknowledgement of debt; Limitation; CIRP; Admission of CIRP;
Balance-Sheet; Entries in Balance Sheet.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1031 of 2022
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.10.2021 of the National
Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Company
Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 238 of 2020

Appearances for Parties
Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv., Sandeep Bajaj, Soayib Qureshi, Devansh
Jain, Naman Tandon, Ms. Vasudha Chadha, Advs. for the Appellant.
Partha Sil, Tavish Bhushan Prasad, Ms. Sayani Bhattacharya,
Abhiraj Chaudhary, Srijit Datta, Gopal Prasad, Ms. Shalya Agarwal,
Dhananjaya Sud, Advs. for the Respondents.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.
1. By the present appeal, the suspended director of the Corporate
Debtor assails the order of the NCLAT1 affirming the order of the
Adjudicating Authority2 admitting the application under Section 7

1 National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 238 of 2020, dated
04.10.2021.
2 Adjudicating Authority/National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata order dated 13.12.2019
in CP No. 254/KB/2019.
1464 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

of IBC3 for initiating CIRP4 proceedings against the Corporate
Debtor.
2. The undisputed facts before us are that the Corporate Debtor
(respondent No. 2 herein), now represented by its Insolvency
Resolution Professional (IRP), availed loan and credit facilities from
UCO Bank (respondent No. 1 herein) and other consortium of banks
under agreements dated 21.06.2010, 30.08.2012, 19.07.2012 and
31.12.2012. The said loan and other credit facilities were availed for
funding of Corporate Debtor’s Thermal Power Plant.
2.1 Having defaulted on repayment of principal as well as interest
levied thereupon, Corporate Debtor’s account was declared
as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 05.11.2014. Further,
proceedings under SARFAESI5 Act and DRT6 for recovery of
dues were also initiated. However, we are not concerned with
these proceedings for disposal of the present appeal.
3. The root of the present controversy arose on 13.02.2019 when UCO
Bank filed an application under Section 7 of the Code to initiate CIRP
proceeding against the Corporate Debtor before the Adjudicating
Authority (NCLT, Kolkata Bench). These proceedings were resisted
by the Corporate Debtor, primarily on the grounds of limitation.
Additionally, the Section 7 application was also challenged on the
grounds that it was not signed by a competent person and also that
there is no liability to pay as per the terms of the agreement and as
such there is no debt.
4. On the issue of competency of the Bank to file the petition under
Section 7, the Adjudicating Authority held that the General Manager
of Bank was legally authorized as attorney to do all acts and also act
on behalf of the Bank and he had the authority to sign the application.
On the issue relating to the existence of debt, the Adjudicating
Authority, examined the contract, the terms and conditions of sanction
letter as well as the relevant credit agreements in detail and came
to the conclusion that the amount was disbursed as a loan and the
Corporate Debtor had in-fact defaulted in repayment of principal as

3 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
4 Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
5 Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest.
6 Debts Recovery Tribunal.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1465

Vidyasagar Prasad v. UCO Bank & Anr.

well as interest levied thereupon. Thus, the contention that there
was no debt was also rejected.
4.1 The main objection to the initiation of CIRP proceedings on the
ground of limitation was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority
on the ground that there is an acknowledgement of debt in
the financial statements as well as auditor’s report of the
Corporate Debtor for the year ending on 31.03.2017. On the
basis of Section 238A of the Code, incorporating the Limitation
Act, the Adjudicating Authority relied on Section 18 of the
Limitation Act to reckon the period of limitation from the date of
acknowledgement of the debt and concluded that the institution
of CIRP on 13.02.2019 is within the period of limitation. The
further contention of the Corporate Debtor that name of UCO
Bank, the financial creditor, is not specifically mentioned in the
relied upon entry in the balance sheet was rejected by NCLT
by referring to the Explanation to Section 7(1) of the Code
providing that the proceedings thereunder get triggered even
in the case of a default by debtor in respect of any financial
creditor other than the applicant.
5. Aggrieved by the admission of Section 7 application, initiation of
CIRP and appointment of IRP, the appellant preferred an appeal to
the NCLAT, Principal Bench. The same arguments were advanced
before the NCLAT and having considered the same in detail, the
NCLAT dismissed the appeal with the following reasoning:
“11.5 Therefore, in the instant case, the balance sheet that
has been brought on record in the instant case before the
Adjudicating Authority shall be taken into consideration
while deciding the question of limitation and default on the
part of the Corporate Debtor. The said documents cannot
be ignored simply on the premise that it is not pleaded in
the Application filed in Form-1 for initiation of the Corporate
Insolvency Process.
11.6 We find that the balance sheet for the financial year
ending on March 31 2017, was part of the record before
the learned Adjudicating Authority and was annexed with
Section 7 Application, which was also duly admitted by the
Appellant during the hearing. Subsequently, the balance
sheet for the financial year ending will March 31 2019,
1466 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

was annexed with the reply filed by Respondent No. 1
before this Hon’ble Tribunal on March 02, 2020. However,
as the practice and procedure of this Hon’ble Tribunal,
the same was not accepted at the filing counter without
the specific mention of this Hon’ble Tribunal. Accordingly,
a copy of the Application for the additional document is
also annexed as Annexure A. Subsequently; this Hon’ble
Tribunal permitted such additional documents to be taken
on record vide its Order dated July 15 2020.
11.7 The Company’s balance sheet is prepared in the
statutory format as per Schedule 3rd of the Companies
Act 2013, which does not provide for giving the specific
name of every secured or unsecured creditor.
11.8 It is further observed that the Corporate Debtor has
not denied that there are no outstanding dues to the UCO
Bank. A perusal of extract of register of charges submitted
with ROC, at Sr. No. 3, shows that a charge of rupees one
hundred and seventy-five crores created by the Corporate
Debtor has not been satisfied and remains outstanding.
11.9 After the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
case Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited v.
Bishal Jaiswal (supra), it is settled that entries in books
of accounts and/or balance sheets of a Corporate Debtor
would amount to an acknowledgement under Section 18.
11.10 In the instant case, we also find that the Corporate
Debtor issued a letter dated June 07 2016 (Annexure A
Page 11 of their reply affidavit of R-1) wherein it has given
OTS proposal. Based on the ratio of the judgement of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakshmirattan Cotton
Mills Co Ltd and further reiterated in Dena Bank’s case
(supra) that there is an acknowledgement of subsisting
liability of the Corporate Debtor. However, it may not
necessarily specify the exact nature of the liability. But
it indicates the jural relation between the parties, and in
any event, the same can also be derived by implication.
Further, the said Letter is not “without prejudice” basis and,
therefore, amounts to an unequivocal acknowledgement
of liability of the Corporate Debtor. A reading of the
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1467

Vidyasagar Prasad v. UCO Bank & Anr.

documents above reveals that the Corporate Debtor has
acknowledged/subsisting liability to attract the provisions
of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
11.11 Based on the discussion as above, we think that the
present Appeal is liable to be dismissed, and the interim
Order dated April 07, 2020, is exposed to vacated.”
6. Mr. Balbir Singh, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
has emphatically argued only one point before us. It is that there
is no clear and unequivocal acknowledgement of debt of the
Corporate Debtor in the entries of the balance sheets. If this is true,
it is submitted, then the financial creditor cannot have the benefit
of Section 18 of the Limitation Act to extend the period of limitation
which commenced on 05.11.2014.
7. The commencement of a fresh period of limitation from the time of
acknowledgement of the debt is part of the statutory scheme. Section
238A of the Code extends the applicability of the provisions of the
Limitation Act to the proceedings under the Code. With the extension
of Limitation Act to the provisions of the Code, the benefit of Section
18 of the Limitation Act dealing with the effect of acknowledgement
of a debt in writing applies. Considering the same issue in Laxmi
Pat Surana v. Union Bank of India7, the Court observed:
“42. Notably, the provisions of the Limitation Act have been
made applicable to the proceedings under the Code, as far
as may be applicable. For, Section 238-A predicates that
the provisions of the Limitation Act shall, as far as may be,
apply to the proceedings or appeals before the adjudicating
authority, NCLAT, the DRT or the Debt Recovery Appellate
Tribunal, as the case may be. After enactment of Section
238-A IBC on 6-6-2018, validity whereof has been upheld
by this Court, it is not open to contend that the limitation for
filing application under Section 7 IBC would be limited to
Article 137 of the Limitation Act and extension of prescribed
period in certain cases could be only under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act. There is no reason to exclude the effect
of Section 18 of the Limitation Act to the proceedings
initiated under the Code.

7 (2021) 8 SCC 481.
1468 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

43. Ordinarily, upon declaration of the loan account/
debt as NPA that date can be reckoned as the date of
default to enable the financial creditor to initiate action
under Section 7 IBC. However, Section 7 comes into play
when the corporate debtor commits “default”. Section 7,
consciously uses the expression “default” — not the date
of notifying the loan account of the corporate person as
NPA. Further, the expression “default” has been defined
in Section 3(12) to mean non-payment of “debt” when
whole or any part or instalment of the amount of debt has
become due and payable and is not paid by the debtor or
the corporate debtor, as the case may be. In cases where
the corporate person had offered guarantee in respect
of loan transaction, the right of the financial creditor to
initiate action against such entity being a corporate debtor
(corporate guarantor), would get triggered the moment the
principal borrower commits default due to non-payment
of debt. Thus, when the principal borrower and/or the
(corporate) guarantor admit and acknowledge their liability
after declaration of NPA but before the expiration of three
years therefrom including the fresh period of limitation
due to (successive) acknowledgments, it is not possible
to extricate them from the renewed limitation accruing
due to the effect of Section 18 of the Limitation Act.
Section 18 of the Limitation Act gets attracted the moment
acknowledgment in writing signed by the party against
whom such right to initiate resolution process under Section
7 IBC enures. Section 18 of the Limitation Act would come
into play every time when the principal borrower and/or
the corporate guarantor (corporate debtor), as the case
may be, acknowledge their liability to pay the debt. Such
acknowledgment, however, must be before the expiration
of the prescribed period of limitation including the fresh
period of limitation due to acknowledgment of the debt,
from time to time, for institution of the proceedings under
Section 7 IBC. Further, the acknowledgment must be of a
liability in respect of which the financial creditor can initiate
action under Section 7 IBC.”
(emphasis supplied)
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1469

Vidyasagar Prasad v. UCO Bank & Anr.

7.1 In Dena Bank v. C. Shivakumar Reddy8 after reviewing the case
law on the subject, this Court held;
“138. While it is true that default in payment of a debt
triggers the right to initiate the corporate resolution process,
and a petition under Section 7 or 9 IBC is required to be
filed within the period of limitation prescribed by law, which
in this case would be three years from the date of default
by virtue of Section 238-A IBC read with Article 137 of the
Schedule to the Limitation Act, the delay in filing a petition
in the NCLT is condonable under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act unlike delay in filing a suit. Furthermore, as observed
above Sections 14 and 18 of the Limitation Act are also
applicable to proceedings under the IBC.
…………
140. To sum up, in our considered opinion an application
under Section 7 IBC would not be barred by limitation,
on the ground that it had been filed beyond a period
of three years from the date of declaration of the loan
account of the corporate debtor as NPA, if there were
an acknowledgment of the debt by the corporate debtor
before expiry of the period of limitation of three years, in
which case the period of limitation would get extended by
a further period of three years.”
(emphasis supplied)
7.2 A reference must also be made to a three Judge Bench decision
in Rajendra Narottamdas Sheth v. Chandra Prakash Jain9 which
succinctly observed;
“27. It is no more res integra that Section 18 of the Limitation
Act is applicable to applications filed under Section 7 of
the Code. In case the application under Section 7 is filed
beyond the period of three years from the date of default
and the financial creditor furnishes the required information
relating to the acknowledgment of debt, in writing by the

8 [2021] 8 SCR 1061 : (2021) 10 SCC 330
9 [2021] 7 SCR 838 : (2022) 5 SCC 600
1470 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

corporate debtor, before the adjudicating authority, with
such acknowledgment having taken place within the initial
period of three years from the date of default, a fresh
period of limitation commences and the application can
be entertained, if filed within this extended period.”
(emphasis supplied)
8. In view of the above referred principles, we will now consider the
nuanced arguments advanced by Mr. Balbir Singh that there is no
unequivocal, unambiguous and specific acknowledgement of debt
owed to UCO Bank in the balance sheet entries of Corporate Debtor
for the years 2017 and 2019. In the absence of clear demarcation as
to what the Corporate Debtor owes to the UCO Bank, the said entries
cannot be relied on for the purpose of extending the period of limitation
in terms of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. Mr. Balbir Singh further
argues that even if said entry is taken to be an acknowledgment of
debt, the same cannot aid respondent No.1’s case since it fails to
mention the name of financial creditor.
8.1 Mr. Partha Sil, counsel on behalf of respondent No. 1-Bank
submitted that the Balance Sheets of a company are prepared
in the prescribed statutory format as per Section 129, read
with Schedule III of the Companies Act 2013, which does not
provide for giving specific names of each and every Secured
and Unsecured creditor. In support of his submission, Mr. Partha
Sil referred to the judgment in Asset Reconstruction Company
(India) Ltd. v. Bishal Jaiswal10 where it was observed that there
was no compulsion for Companies to make any particular
admissions in the balance sheet, except for what is prescribed.
9. A three Judge Bench of this Court in Bishal Jaiswal (Supra) has
addressed and clarified this issue by holding that;
“35. A perusal of the aforesaid sections would show that
there is no doubt that the filing of a balance sheet in
accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act is
mandatory, any transgression of the same being punishable
by law. However, what is of importance is that notes that
are annexed to or forming part of such financial statements

10 [2021] 3 SCR 524 : (2021) 6 SCC 366.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1471

Vidyasagar Prasad v. UCO Bank & Anr.

are expressly recognised by Section 134(7). Equally, the
auditor’s report may also enter caveats with regard to
acknowledgments made in the books of accounts including
the balance sheet. A perusal of the aforesaid would show
that the statement of law contained in Bengal Silk Mills Co.
v. Ismail Golam Hossain Ariff, that there is a compulsion
in law to prepare a balance sheet but no compulsion to
make any particular admission, is correct in law as it
would depend on the facts of each case as to whether an
entry made in a balance sheet qua any particular creditor
is unequivocal or has been entered into with caveats,
which then has to be examined on a case by case basis
to establish whether an acknowledgment of liability has,
in fact, been made, thereby extending limitation under
Section 18 of the Limitation Act.”
(emphasis supplied)
10. Having considered the specific facts and circumstances of this case,
the Adjudicating Authority as well as the NCLAT have concurrently held
that the entries in the balance sheets amount to clear acknowledgment
of debt. We agree with the findings. Further, Note 3.4 appended to
said balance sheet entry dated 31.03.2017 mentions that “company
has made certain defaults in the repayment of term loans and interest.”
It further mentions of a continuing default. The entry also mentions
long-term borrowings. The conclusions of NCLT and NCLAT that
there is acknowledgment of debt are unimpeachable.
10.1 Following the principles as expounded in the case of Bishal
Jaiswal (Supra), the Adjudicating Authority as well as the
NCLAT have examined the case in detail and have come to the
conclusion that the entry made in the balance sheet coupled
with the note of the auditor of the appellant clearly amounts to
acknowledgement of the liability. We see no reason whatsoever
to take a different view of the matter. Their findings are fortified
when we examine the matter from another perspective.
11. Adjudicating Authority and NCLAT have also considered the Corporate
Debtor’s proposal of One Time Settlement (OTS) to UCO Bank. The
proposal made by letter dated 07.06.2016 acknowledges that there
were prior debts owed to UCO Bank. To substantiate the argument
that such OTS constituted acknowledgment of debt since it relates
1472 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

to present and subsisting liability and indicates existence of a jural
relationship between the parties, UCO Bank relied on judgment of
this Court in Lakshmirattan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. and Messrs Behari
Lal Ram Charan v. Aluminium Corporation of India Limited11. The
implication of a statement about a present and subsisting debt of a
Corporate Debtor is articulated by this Court in the following manner;
“9. It is clear that the statement on which the plea of
acknowledgment is founded must relate to a subsisting
liability as the section requires that it must be made before
the expiration of the period prescribed under the Act. It
need not, however, amount to a promise to pay, for, an
acknowledgment does not create a new right of action but
merely extends the period of limitation. The statement need
not indicate the exact nature or the specific character of
the liability. The words used in the statement in question,
however, must relate to a present subsisting liability and
indicate the existence of jural relationship between the
parties, such as, for instance, that of a debtor and a
creditor and the intention to admit such jural relationship.
Such an intention need not be in express terms and can
be inferred by implication from the nature of the admission
and the surrounding circumstances. Generally speaking,
a liberal construction of the statement in question should
be given. That of course does not mean that where a
statement is made without intending to admit the existence
of jural relationship, such intention should be fastened on
the person making the statement by an involved and far-
fetched reasoning…”
(emphasis supplied)
11.1 It is also relevant to refer to judgment in Dena Bank (Supra)
which held as follows:
“139. Section 18 of the Limitation Act cannot also be
construed with pedantic rigidity in relation to proceedings
under the IBC. This Court sees no reason why an offer
of one-time settlement of a live claim, made within the

11 (1971) 1 SCC 67
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1473

Vidyasagar Prasad v. UCO Bank & Anr.

period of limitation, should not also be construed as an
acknowledgment to attract Section 18 of the Limitation
Act…”
(emphasis supplied)
12. Both these factors, acknowledgment of debt in the balance sheet as
well as in the OTS proposal, have been considered by NCLAT while
dismissing the appeal. The relevant portion of the NCLAT findings,
after considering balance sheet entries and OTS letter are as follows:
“11.7 The Company’s balance sheet is prepared in the
statutory format as per Schedule 3rd of the Companies
Act 2013, which does not provide for giving the specific
name of every secured or unsecured creditor.
11.8 It is further observed that the Corporate Debtor has
not denied that there are no outstanding dues to the UCO
Bank. A perusal of extract of register of charges submitted
with ROC, at Sr. No. 3, shows that a charge of rupees one
hundred and seventy-five crores created by the Corporate
Debtor has not been satisfied and remains outstanding.
11.10 In the instant case, we also find that the Corporate
Debtor issued a letter dated June 07 2016 (Annexure A
Page 11 of their reply affidavit of R-1) wherein it has given
OTS proposal. Based on the ratio of the judgement of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakshmirattan Cotton
Mills Co Ltd and further reiterated in Dena Bank’s case
(supra) that there is an acknowledgement of subsisting
liability of the Corporate Debtor. However, it may not
necessarily specify the exact nature of the liability. But
it indicates the jural relation between the parties, and in
any event, the same can also be derived by implication.
Further, the said Letter is not “without prejudice” basis and,
therefore, amounts to an unequivocal acknowledgement
of liability of the Corporate Debtor. A reading of the
documents above reveals that the Corporate Debtor has
acknowledged/subsisting liability to attract the provisions
of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.”
13. Having examined the matter in detail, we are of the opinion that
the findings arrived at by the Adjudicating Authority and NCLAT are
1474 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

correct in law and fact. We find no merit in the appeal. The Civil
Appeal No. 1031 of 2022 arising out of the NCLAT order dated
04.10.2021 (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 238 of 2020)
is dismissed accordingly.
14. No order as to costs.

Result of the Case: Appeal dismissed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Mukund P Unny, Hony. Associate Editor
(Verified by: Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv.)