Section 7 of IBC and Limitation: Date of Default, Acknowledgment and Revival of Claims

Section 7 of IBC and Limitation: Date of Default, Acknowledgment and Revival of Claims: What a Financial Creditor Should Check Before Initiating CIRP

Summary: The supplied material is a practical article on limitation for Financial Creditors considering initiation of CIRP under Section 7 of the IBC. It explains that Article 137 of the Limitation Act provides a three-year period from the date the right to apply accrues, ordinarily linked to the date of default, and that NPA classification should not automatically be treated as the starting point. The article discusses events that may affect limitation, including written acknowledgments under Section 18, qualifying part-payments under Section 19, balance-sheet entries, revival letters, OTS proposals, restructuring arrangements, judgments, decrees and Recovery Certificates. It distinguishes creditor recovery actions, including SARFAESI proceedings, from events that may legally affect limitation and notes that SARFAESI notices do not automatically revive limitation. It highlights B. Prashanth Hegde v. State Bank of India (2026) concerning default dates, restructuring, balance-sheet acknowledgments and Form 1. It recommends preparing a complete limitation timeline and supporting it with relevant account, payment, restructuring, settlement and judicial records before filing a Section 7 application.

Background

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016,gives a Financial Creditor a powerful remedy: on proof of default, it can seek initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against a Corporate Debtor under Section 7. Because this remedy is time-bound like every other civil remedy, one preliminary question has to be answered before the application is drafted at all — is the claim still within limitation?

Limitation has therefore become an important threshold issue in Section 7 proceedings, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly clarified the principles governing its computation — most recently in 2025 and 2026. This article sets out, in a practical and structured manner, how a Financial Creditor — bank, NBFC, or any other lender — should examine limitation before a Section 7 application is filed.

Introduction

A Financial Creditor may have a genuine and substantial outstanding amount against a Corporate Debtor. However, the mere existence of a debt does not entitle the creditor to file a Section 7 application at any point of time.

The law of limitation places a time boundary on the right to initiate legal proceedings. The IBC is not intended to provide a fresh opportunity to recover a debt that has already become legally time-barred. This raises a basic question:

When did the right to file the Section 7 application actually arise?

The answer ordinarily takes us to the date of default. At the same time, the calculation cannot always be made simply by taking the original default date and adding three years. During the intervening period there may have been an acknowledgment of liability, part-payment, restructuring, a One-Time Settlement (OTS) proposal, a revival letter, proceedings before another forum, a judgment or decree, or a Recovery Certificate.

Limitation under Section 7 therefore requires an examination of the complete history of the account, and not merely the date on which the loan account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA).

1. Starting Point: The Limitation Act, 1963

Any analysis of limitation under the IBC must begin with the Limitation Act, 1963.

Section 238A of the IBC provides that the provisions of the Limitation Act shall, as far as may be, apply to proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). The Supreme Court in B.K. Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Parag Gupta & Associates (B.K. Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Parag Gupta & Associates, Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 23988 of 2017 and connected appeals, decided on 11 October 2018, (2019) 11 SCC 633; AIR 2018 SC 5601) settled that Article 137 of the Limitation Act applies to applications under Section 7 of the IBC, a position also affirmed in Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd.

Article 137 prescribes a limitation period of three years from the date the right to apply accrues. In simple terms:

Right to apply → Date of default → Three years

This is only the starting point of the analysis.

2. What is a Section 7 Application?

Section 7 of the IBC enables a Financial Creditor to initiate CIRP against a Corporate Debtor when a default has occurred. The application is filed before the Adjudicating Authority in the prescribed manner, disclosing the particulars of debt and default in Form 1.

Section 7 is not merely a recovery proceeding. Its object is the commencement of the insolvency resolution process where the corporate debtor has committed default. Before filing, the Financial Creditor should be able to establish, among other things:

• existence of the financial debt;
• occurrence of default;
• amount of default;
• date of default; and
• that the application is within limitation.

The last point is sometimes overlooked when the outstanding amount is large and the debt itself is undisputed. As the Supreme Court has clarified, the purpose of stating the date of default in Form 1 is precisely to establish that the debt is due and payable and has not become time-barred.

3. The Most Important Date — Date of Default

Section 3(12) of the IBC defines “default” as non-payment of debt when the whole or any part of it has become due and payable and is not paid by the debtor. For limitation purposes, the first question should be: on what date did the default actually occur?

NPA classification should not mechanically be treated as the starting point of limitation. The relevant date must be determined from the facts of the debt, the contractual payment obligations and the occurrence of default. However, the NPA date may be relevant evidence of default and, depending upon the subsequent history of the account, may form part of the limitation analysis.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that the right to apply under Section 7 accrues when the default occurs. In B.K. Educational Services, the Court held that where default had occurred more than three years before filing, the application would ordinarily be barred by Article 137, subject to legally recognised circumstances affecting limitation. In Laxmi Pat Surana v. Union Bank of India (Laxmi Pat Surana v. Union Bank of India & Anr., Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 2734 of 2020, decided on 26 March 2021, (2021) 8 SCC 481; 2021 INSC 222), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the importance of the actual date of default over the NPA date. More recently, in B. Prashanth Hegde v. State Bank of India (2026), the Court accepted, on the facts before it, the dates set out in an amended Section 7 application because subsequent restructuring and acknowledgments had altered the limitation position — illustrating that the date of default is a factual finding to be established from the account history, not assumed from the NPA date.

Account records should therefore be examined to determine when the debt became due and remained unpaid. In some accounts, the NPA date may coincide with the relevant default date; in others — particularly where instalments, recall, or restructuring are involved — the factual position needs closer examination.

4. How is the Three-Year Period Calculated?

Once the relevant date of default is identified, the basic calculation is straightforward:

Date of default + three years = normal limitation period

For example, if the relevant default occurred on 15 March 2022, the three-year period would ordinarily run up to 15 March 2025. This computation is, however, subject to the applicable provisions of the Limitation Act, including exclusion of the first day under Section 12, and any legally permissible exclusion, extension or fresh computation arising from subsequent events. If the Section 7 application is filed after the ordinary three-year period, the Financial Creditor must examine whether any legally recognised event occurred before expiry of limitation that affects the computation — which is where Sections 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act become important.

5. Acknowledgment of Debt — Section 18

Section 18 provides that where, before expiry of the prescribed period, an acknowledgment of liability is made in writing and signed by the party against whom the right is claimed, a fresh period of limitation is computed from the date of that acknowledgment.

Illustration

• Original default: 1 April 2021
• Normal limitation: 31 March 2024
• Written acknowledgment by Corporate Debtor: 15 December 2023

Here, since the acknowledgment satisfies Section 18, a fresh limitation period runs from 15 December 2023.

The critical requirement: the acknowledgment must be made before the existing limitation period expires.

A document executed after the debt has already become time-barred cannot ordinarily be used under Section 18 to revive an extinguished remedy. At the same time, an acknowledgment does not necessarily become invalid merely because it does not admit the precise amount, or contains a reservation or caveat. The Supreme Court in Prashanth Hegde reiterated that a Section 18 acknowledgment has to be examined from the document and the surrounding circumstances as a whole — in that case, even a balance-sheet acknowledgment accompanied by a caveat that the recovery matter was sub judice was accepted on the facts before the Court. This makes the assessment of acknowledgment somewhat more fact-sensitive than a plain reading of Section 18 might suggest, and correspondingly more important to document carefully.

6. What Can Constitute Acknowledgment?

The question is not merely whether the debtor has signed a document. The contents and surrounding circumstances must be examined to determine whether there is an acknowledgment of a subsisting liability.

(a) Balance Sheet Acknowledgment — Important but Not Automatic

A liability shown in the balance sheet may constitute acknowledgment for limitation purposes. However, it should not be assumed that every entry in every balance sheet automatically extends limitation. In Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. Bishal Jaiswal (Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. Bishal Jaiswal & Anr., Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 323 of 2021 and connected appeals, decided on 15 April 2021, (2021) 6 SCC 366; 2021 INSC 254), the Supreme Court recognised that balance-sheet entries can amount to acknowledgment, but the entry and accompanying notes or caveats have to be examined on the facts of each case.

Two recent decisions have developed this further. In IL&FS Financial Services Ltd. v. Adhunik Meghalaya Steels Pvt. Ltd. (IL&FS Financial Services Ltd. v. Adhunik Meghalaya Steels Pvt. Ltd., Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 5787 of 2025, decided on 30 July 2025, 2025 INSC 911) (2025), the Supreme Court held that balance-sheet entries, read together with the corporate debtor’s financial statements from earlier years, can constitute a valid acknowledgment under Section 18 even where the creditor’s name is not specifically mentioned in the balance sheet — provided the surrounding disclosures establish continuity of the liability. In B. Prashanth Hegde (2026), the Court went further on its facts, holding that debt restructuring and the balance-sheet acknowledgments that followed it could give the debt a fresh lease of life for limitation purposes. Previous balance sheets — and the notes, schedules and cash-flow disclosures accompanying them — should therefore be carefully reviewed while preparing a Section 7 application, and not read in isolation from the years before and after.

(b) Revival Letter

A signed revival or acknowledgment letter expressly confirming the outstanding liability can be an important document for limitation purposes. The date matters as much as the content — a revival letter issued before expiry of limitation has a very different legal effect from one executed after limitation has already lapsed. For Section 18, the relevant date is generally the date on which the acknowledgment is signed, not merely the date on which the document is subsequently filed, uploaded, or produced before an authority. The supporting record should therefore clearly establish the date and the authority of the person signing the acknowledgment.

(c) One-Time Settlement (OTS) Proposal

A genuine OTS proposal made by the Corporate Debtor, acknowledging the subsisting liability, can — depending on its wording and circumstances — constitute acknowledgment under Section 18. The substance of the proposal matters more than its label: the Supreme Court has recognised an OTS proposal as an acknowledgment where it indicates a subsisting liability and the continuing jural relationship of debtor and creditor. That said, every OTS communication should not be mechanically treated as an acknowledgment; its wording, date, the authority of the person issuing it, and whether it genuinely acknowledges a subsisting liability should all be examined.

(d) Restructuring Proposal or Agreement

Where a Corporate Debtor approaches the Financial Creditor for restructuring and the documents contain an acknowledgment of the existing liability, such documents may become relevant for limitation. As Prashanth Hegde illustrates, a restructuring exercise that continues over a period of years — with successive acknowledgments along the way — can materially alter the limitation position on the facts of a given case. A restructuring proposal should therefore not be assessed only from a credit-management perspective; it may also carry real limitation significance and should be preserved and dated carefully.

7. Part-Payment — Section 19

Section 19 of the Limitation Act deals with payment made towards a debt or interest before expiry of the prescribed period. Where the statutory requirements are satisfied, a fresh limitation period is computed from the date of payment.

While checking an old loan account, it is not enough to look only at the sanction, NPA, and recovery dates. The Financial Creditor should also examine:

• the date of every material payment;
• the amount paid;
• the account from which the payment was made;
• whether it was made by the person liable;
• whether the payment occurred before expiry of limitation; and
• the documentary evidence establishing the payment.

The distinction between acknowledgment under Section 18 and payment under Section 19 should be kept clear — they are separate legal routes to a fresh limitation period.

A creditor should also distinguish, as a general matter, between an act of the creditor taken to recover the debt and an act of the debtor which legally affects limitation.

A demand notice, a SARFAESI notice, a possession notice, or the filing of recovery proceedings are all steps taken by the creditor — they do not, by themselves, restart the limitation clock. An acknowledgment, a part-payment, a genuine OTS, or a revival letter, on the other hand, are acts (or, in the case of a judgment or Recovery Certificate, events) that carry legal consequences for limitation because they either originate from the debtor or alter the underlying cause of action. Keeping this distinction in mind while reviewing an account file avoids the common error of treating every recovery step as if it were a fresh trigger for limitation.

8. Recovery Certificate — A Different Situation

A Recovery Certificate issued by the DRT should not be treated merely as another acknowledgment under Section 18. The Supreme Court in Dena Bank v. C. Shivakumar Reddy (Dena Bank (now Bank of Baroda) v. C. Shivakumar Reddy & Anr., Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 1650 of 2020, decided on 4 August 2021, (2021) 10 SCC 330; 2021 SCC OnLine SC 543) recognised that, in appropriate circumstances, a judgment, decree, or Recovery Certificate may furnish a fresh cause of action for initiation of proceedings under Section 7.

The sequence may be visualised as:

Original default → Limitation period → DRT proceedings → Judgment / Decree / Recovery Certificate → Fresh cause of action (Dena Bank)

The Section 7 application should still be filed within the applicable period calculated from the relevant judgment, decree, or Recovery Certificate. This is not a general proposition that any recovery action automatically extends limitation — the point made in the preceding section.

9. What About SARFAESI Proceedings?

This is an area where particular care is needed. A bank may have issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, taken possession under Section 13(4), or pursued further proceedings.

It would be unsafe to simply state that a SARFAESI notice revives limitation for Section 7.

A SARFAESI notice issued by the creditor should not, by itself, be equated with an acknowledgment of liability by the Corporate Debtor under Section 18.

However, in particular circumstances, the period spent in proceedings before another forum may have consequences under the Limitation Act, including the principle of exclusion of time under Section 14. In Sesh Nath Singh v. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Cooperative Bank (Sesh Nath Singh & Anr. v. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Anr., Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 9198 of 2019, decided on 22 March 2021, (2021) 7 SCC 313; 2021 INSC 199) Ltd., the Supreme Court recognised that provisions such as Sections 14 and 18 of the Limitation Act can apply to IBC proceedings, subject to the facts.

While examining an old account, the following should therefore be separately identified:

• the SARFAESI notice and subsequent SARFAESI proceedings;
• any stay granted by a court;
• the period for which proceedings remained pending;
• the nature of the forum and proceedings; and
• whether Section 14 or any other exclusion provision is actually attracted.

This is far safer than treating every SARFAESI notice as a fresh limitation trigger.

10. Limitation Cannot Be Revived Once It Has Already Expired

This is perhaps the most important practical point. Section 18 is not a provision for reviving a debt that has already become time-barred — the acknowledgment must be made before expiry of the existing limitation period.

If no valid acknowledgment, payment, or other legally recognised event occurs during the three-year period from the date of default, and the claim becomes time-barred, a subsequent letter cannot ordinarily be used as a device to create a fresh limitation period. This is consistent with the Supreme Court’s approach that the IBC should not become a mechanism for reviving stale claims — B.K. Educational Services specifically recognised that the Code was not intended to revive debts that were already time-barred.

11. Recent Supreme Court Clarification — B. Prashanth Hegde v. State Bank of India (B. Prashanth Hegde v. State Bank of India & Anr., Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 477 of 2022, decided on 12 February 2026, 2026 INSC 155) (2026)

On 12 February 2026, the Supreme Court decided B. Prashanth Hegde v. State Bank of India, a case that touches almost every issue discussed above: date of default, NPA classification, restructuring, balance-sheet acknowledgment, Section 18, and the contents of Form 1.

The account in question had been classified as NPA years before the Section 7 application was filed, and the Corporate Debtor argued that the claim was hopelessly time-barred. The consortium of banks, however, relied on a debt-restructuring exercise that continued for several years after the NPA date, together with acknowledgments recorded in the balance sheets during that period. The Supreme Court held that the classification of debt as NPA is not, by itself, decisive of the limitation question, and that restructuring arrangements and the acknowledgments accompanying them can give a debt a fresh lease of life. The Court also clarified that the purpose of stating the date of default in Form 1 is to demonstrate that the debt is due, payable, and not time-barred — and that a Section 7 application substantially complying with this requirement should not be rejected for insignificant errors or omissions where the essential particulars of debt and default are otherwise disclosed.

For a Financial Creditor, the practical lesson is that a long history of restructuring and settlement discussions with a defaulting borrower — often viewed purely as a credit-recovery exercise — can carry real limitation value if properly documented and dated. Conversely, treating the NPA date as the automatic and only relevant date of default, without examining what happened afterwards, risks understating the strength of an otherwise sound claim.

12. The Limitation Audit — A Practical Timeline Before Filing Section 7

Before filing Section 7, the Financial Creditor should prepare a simple limitation timeline covering the following milestones:

1. Date of sanction

2. Date of first default

3. Subsequent instalment defaults, if relevant

4. Date of NPA

5. Recall / demand notice

6. SARFAESI proceedings

7. Written acknowledgments

8. Balance-sheet acknowledgment

9. OTS proposal

10. Restructuring / revival documents

11. Part-payments

12. DRT / court judgment or decree

13. Recovery Certificate

14. Any proceedings where exclusion of time may arise

15. Proposed date of filing Section 7

This exercise quickly shows whether the claim is comfortably within limitation, or whether a detailed limitation analysis is required before filing. It is, in effect, the single most useful working document a Financial Creditor can prepare before drafting a Section 7 application.

13. What Documents Should Be Checked?

A limitation examination should not rely only on the bank’s latest statement of account. Depending on the case, the following documents may be relevant:

• Loan sanction documents and loan agreements
• Repayment schedule and account statement
• Evidence of first and subsequent defaults
• NPA classification records
• Recall notice and SARFAESI notices / proceedings
• Correspondence with the borrower
• Acknowledgment letters, revival letters and balance confirmations
• Audited financial statements and balance sheets, including notes and cash-flow disclosures
• OTS proposals and restructuring proposals / agreements
• Evidence of part-payments
• DRT proceedings, judgment / decree and Recovery Certificate
• Settlement documents and any court or tribunal order affecting computation of limitation

The objective is to establish a document-supported chain of events, not a bare assertion of a default date.

14. A Simple Limitation Test Before Section 7 Filing

Before signing and filing the application, five questions should be asked:

• What is the legally relevant date of default?
• Has three years expired from that date?
• Was there any valid written acknowledgment before expiry?
• Was there any qualifying part-payment before expiry?
• Has any judgment, decree, Recovery Certificate, exclusion period, restructuring, or other legally recognised event affected the computation?

If these five questions are properly answered, the limitation position becomes much clearer before drafting even begins — and the application can plead limitation with the same care it pleads debt and default.

15. Limitation Should Be Pleaded and Supported, Not Assumed

A common difficulty in Section 7 applications is that a date of default is mentioned, but the supporting documents do not clearly establish how that date was arrived at. This creates avoidable controversy, and — as Prashanth Hegde shows — can prolong litigation across multiple appellate forums over what should have been a document-driven question.

The Financial Creditor should clearly explain: why the particular date has been taken as the date of default; what documents establish the default; what events occurred thereafter; which events are relied upon for acknowledgment, payment, exclusion or a fresh cause of action; and how the final filing date falls within limitation. A large outstanding amount, or the fact that the borrower has not disputed the debt for years, does not by itself overcome limitation — the creditor must still demonstrate a legally sustainable basis for the filing being within time.

Key Supreme Court Decisions on Limitation Under Section 7

These principles rest on a consistent and evolving line of Supreme Court authority. In B.K. Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Parag Gupta & Associates and Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. (Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. & Anr., Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 4952 of 2019, decided on 18 September 2019, (2019) 10 SCC 572; 2019 INSC 1051), the Court settled that Article 137 of the Limitation Act applies to Section 7 applications, and made clear that the IBC does not revive debts that are already time-barred.

In Laxmi Pat Surana v. Union Bank of India, the Court reaffirmed that it is the date of default — not merely the date of NPA classification — that is central to computing limitation under Section 7.

what constitutes acknowledgment, the Court in Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. Bishal Jaiswal recognised that entries in a balance sheet can amount to acknowledgment of liability under Section 18, and in Vidyasagar Prasad v. UCO Bank (Vidyasagar Prasad v. UCO Bank & Anr., Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 1031 of 2022, decided on 22 October 2024, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2993; 2024 INSC 810) the Court further On reiterated this line of authority on balance-sheet acknowledgment and OTS proposals.

In Dena Bank v. C. Shivakumar Reddy, the Court held that a judgment, decree, or Recovery Certificate can furnish a fresh cause of action for filing a Section 7 application, and in Sesh Nath Singh v. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Cooperative Bank Ltd., the Court recognised that Sections 14 and 18 of the Limitation Act can apply to IBC proceedings, depending on the facts.

Two recent decisions carry this forward. IL&FS Financial Services Ltd. v. Adhunik Meghalaya Steels Pvt. Ltd. (2025) held that balance-sheet entries, read with prior years’ financial statements, can be a valid acknowledgment even where the creditor is not named.

And B. Prashanth Hegde v. State Bank of India (2026) — the most recent and, for this subject, the most directly relevant — dealt squarely with date of default, restructuring, balance-sheet acknowledgment, Section 18, and the requirements of Form 1, holding that restructuring and consequent acknowledgments can give a debt a fresh lease of life for limitation purposes. Read together, these decisions form the backbone of any limitation analysis before filing under Section 7.

Conclusion

The limitation issue under Section 7 of the IBC can be reduced to one basic principle: the clock starts with the accrual of the right to apply, ordinarily linked to the date of default. But the clock may be affected by legally recognised events.

A written acknowledgment before expiry may provide a fresh period under Section 18. A qualifying part-payment before expiry may have consequences under Section 19. An OTS, restructuring proposal, revival letter, or balance-sheet entry may become relevant where it amounts to a valid acknowledgment — and, as recent Supreme Court decisions confirm, can give an otherwise ageing debt a fresh lease of life. A judgment, decree, or Recovery Certificate may, in the circumstances recognised by the Supreme Court, provide a fresh cause of action. SARFAESI proceedings require a separate analysis and should not simply be described as an automatic revival of limitation.

The most important distinction, ultimately, is between an event which legally affects limitation and a recovery action taken by the creditor. Every recovery action does not restart the limitation clock. For this reason, before filing a Section 7 application, the creditor should prepare a complete chronology of the account and test every material event against the Limitation Act.

In insolvency proceedings, the question is not merely whether money is outstanding. The question is whether the right to invoke the insolvency process is still legally available on the date of filing.

Message to Readers

For bankers, recovery officers, and insolvency professionals, the practical takeaway is simple: build the limitation timeline before the Section 7 drafting begins, not after a defect is pointed out by the Adjudicating Authority. For company management, promoters, and professionals advising a Corporate Debtor, understanding this framework is equally useful — it clarifies which communications, balance-sheet entries, or settlement proposals may carry limitation consequences, and why such documents should never be issued casually or without legal advice.

Cases Discussed:

• B. Prashanth Hegde v. State Bank of India & Anr. (Supreme Court of India), Civil Appeal No. 477 of 2022, decided on 12 February 2026, 2026 INSC 155
• IL&FS Financial Services Ltd. v. Adhunik Meghalaya Steels Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court of India), Civil Appeal No. 5787 of 2025, decided on 30 July 2025, 2025 INSC 911
• Vidyasagar Prasad v. UCO Bank & Anr. (Supreme Court of India), Civil Appeal No. 1031 of 2022, decided on 22 October 2024, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2993; 2024 INSC 810
• Dena Bank (now Bank of Baroda) v. C. Shivakumar Reddy & Anr. (Supreme Court of India), Civil Appeal No. 1650 of 2020, decided on 4 August 2021, (2021) 10 SCC 330; 2021 SCC OnLine SC 543
• Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. Bishal Jaiswal & Anr. (Supreme Court of India), Civil Appeal No. 323 of 2021 and connected appeals, decided on 15 April 2021, (2021) 6 SCC 366; 2021 INSC 254
• Laxmi Pat Surana v. Union Bank of India & Anr. (Supreme Court of India), Civil Appeal No. 2734 of 2020, decided on 26 March 2021, (2021) 8 SCC 481; 2021 INSC 222
• Sesh Nath Singh & Anr. v. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Anr. (Supreme Court of India), Civil Appeal No. 9198 of 2019, decided on 22 March 2021, (2021) 7 SCC 313; 2021 INSC 199
• Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. & Anr. (Supreme Court of India), Civil Appeal No. 4952 of 2019, decided on 18 September 2019, (2019) 10 SCC 572; 2019 INSC 1051
• B.K. Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Parag Gupta & Associates (Supreme Court of India), Civil Appeal No. 23988 of 2017 and connected appeals, decided on 11 October 2018, (2019) 11 SCC 633; AIR 2018 SC 5601

****

Disclaimer: This article is intended solely for educational and general awareness purposes. It is not intended to constitute legal advice, a legal opinion, or professional advice in relation to any particular case or transaction. Limitation is highly dependent upon the facts, documents, contractual terms and applicable judicial interpretation. Readers should obtain appropriate professional advice before taking any legal or financial action.

About the Author: Ashok Kakkar is an Advocate, Insolvency Professional, and Former Banker (former Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank), with over four decades of experience in banking, finance, insolvency and commercial laws. He holds M.Com, LLB, LLM and CAIIB qualifications and writes regularly on banking, finance, and insolvency law for the benefit of professionals, businesses, and students.

#Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) ,#Section 7 IBC, Limitation Act ,# Date of Default ,# Financial Creditor,# Acknowledgment of Debt ,# Corporate Insolvency,# Resolution Process (CIRP) ,#Debt Recovery