SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 607

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Sharad Kumar Sharma, J
S. Arun – Appellant
Versus
Neeraj Agarwal – Respondent
Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.447/2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:S. R. Rajagopal, Senior Advocate, Anirudh A Sriram, Akash Srinanda, Vishal Sridhar
For the Respondents: Sakshi Jain, Varun Srinivasan

Issuance of a cheque by the corporate debtor after the date of default constitutes an acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, extending the limitation period for filing a Section 9 application under IBC.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 8, Section 9 and Section 9(5) - Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 137 and Section 18 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Issue of cheques after default - Issuance of cheques, even if dishonoured, constitutes an acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, resetting the limitation period - The date of default in Part IV of the Section 9 application can be corrected if there is an inadvertent error, especially when the correction is based on documents admitted by the Corporate Debtor. (Paras 11, 13, 16, 18, 24)

(B) Limitation - Acknowledgment of debt - Issuance of post-dated cheques, part payments, and email communications after the initial date of default constitute acknowledgments of liability and extend the limitation period from the date of each acknowledgment. (Paras 11, 14, 24)

(C) The provisions of Section 9(5) of the IBC regarding the time for removal of defects are directory and not mandatory, and the Adjudicating Authority has the discretion to permit correction of defects to avoid travesty of justice. (Para 16, 17)

Facts of the case:
The Appellant, the suspended director of the Corporate Debtor (CD), challenged the order of the NCLT admitting a Section 9 application filed by the Respondent (Operational Creditor). The CD had supplied goods, and the Respondent had raised invoices. The parties entered into an MoU on 21.07.2018, converting the outstanding amount into a loan. The CD made part payments and issued five post-dated cheques on 16.06.2021, which were dishonoured. The Respondent issued a demand notice under Section 8 on 22.06.2022 and filed the Section 9 application on 05.09.2022. The Appellant argued the application was barred by limitation, as the default date mentioned in Part IV of the application was 01.07.2018.

Findings of Court:
The NCLAT held that the issuance of cheques on 16.06.2021, along with part payments and email communications, constituted an acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The limitation period began from 16.06.2021, and the application filed on 05.09.2022 was within time. The court also held that an inadvertent error in the date of default in the application could be corrected based on other documents on record.

Issues: Whether the application under Section 9 of the IBC was barred by limitation, and whether the date of default mentioned in the application could be corrected.

Ratio Decidendi: Issuance of a cheque, even if subsequently dishonoured, constitutes an acknowledgment of debt within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and extends the limitation period. An incidental error in the date of default in the Form 5 application can be corrected by the Adjudicating Authority, as the provisions regarding time are directory, not mandatory.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. what are the facts and background of the case leading to the appeal? (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. what are the arguments of the appellant regarding limitation and acknowledgment? (Para 5 , 6 , 11)
3. what is the content of the mou and the subsequent transactions? (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. how does the issuance of cheques and part payments affect limitation? (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. can the date of default be corrected and what is the effect of case laws? (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
6. what is the final conclusion and reasoning of the court? (Para 24 , 25 , 26)

O R D E R

(Hybrid Mode)

[ORAL JUDGMENT: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial)] 21.04.2026:

In the instant Appeal, the Appellant, the suspended director of the Corporate Debtor M/s. Sargam Metals Pvt. Ltd., puts a challenge to the impugned order of 28.11.2024 that was passed by the Ld. NCLT Chennai Bench in CP(IB) No. 211/CHE/2022. The consequential effect of the impugned order, had been that the application preferred by the Respondent under Section 9 of the I & B Code, 2016, has been allowed and the Corporate Debtor (CD) has been put under Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

2. Ld. Senior Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that, the manner in which the Ld. Tribunal has proceeded to decide the controversy qua the admission of an application under Section 9 of the Code, is absolutely preposterous and contrary to the documents on record and is based on wrongful appreciation of the evidence. He has contended that Ld. NCLT has incorrectly held that the proceedings initiated under Section 9 of the Code, at the behest of the Respondents was not barred by limitation and that, the corporate debtor had acknowledgement of liability by issuing the cheques later on and that, because these two issues have not been appropriately dealt with by the Ld. Tribunal, the impugned order stands vitiated and it deserves to be set aside by this Appellate Tribunal.

3. The facts which should be borne out from the record are the Corporate Debtor (CD), i.e., M/s. Sargam Metals Private Limited stood incorporated in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act as back as on 25.05.1970 and it is engaged in the business of manufacturing of electrical and electronics unitized systems, semi-unitized systems and aluminium composite panel claddings. The operational creditor (OC), the respondent-1 herein, is engaged in supply of aluminium ingots, sheets, coils, and scrap and during the course of the said business, had supplied the above items to the Corporate Debtor and had raised certain invoices with the Corporate Debtor . The Corporate Debtor, in turn had made a part payment as against the said invoices, and an amount of Rs. 265 lakhs remained unpaid and outstanding thereafter, despite of repeated demands raised by the Respondent.

4. In these circumstances, the parties admittedly entered into a memorandum of understanding (MoU) on 21.07.2018, whereby the outstanding amount of Rs. 265 lakhs was converted into a fresh loan due and payable from the said date, to be repaid in instalments of at least Rs. 25 lakh every quarter starting from 01.07.2018. subsequent to the signing of MoU, the corporate debtor repaid a part amount of Rs. 46.95 lakh only as per the MoU and for the balance amount of Rs. 218.05 lakh, issued 5 (five) post-dated cheques on 16.06.2021 which on presentation got dishonoured with the remarks ‘account closed’. Subsequently, the OC issued the demand notice under Section 8 of the Code, on 22.06.2022 and thereafter, filed the application under Section 9 of the Code on 05.09.2022 as against the CD. The said application was admitted by Ld. NCLT, Chennai-II by virtue of the order dated 28.11.2024 which is impugned in the instant appeal by the Appellant.

5. It is argued by the Ld. Senior Counsel for the Appellant that the proceedings would be barred by limitation because the date of default as per MoU is 01.07.2018 as per the particulars given in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top