Sir even that the intent was not packaged the court is fresh opportunity for creditors and

claimant who did

not exercise there remedy under existing law with in prescribe limitation period. Committee thought it fit
but ins specific section appearing limitation act to the court relevant entering through the limitation act
may be of case to case basis. It was further needed that limitation act may not apply the application of
corporate and appellant as this are initiated by appellant for its own debts for the por of CIRP and are not
in the form of creditors remedy. The perusal of the above would show that considering that the limitation
act applies only to course only made statuary applicable to tribunal committee was of the view that such
act should be made to apply to the IBC as well. Observe that through IVC is not a debt recovery law. The
tribunal being of in payment of debt would render the execution of the law limitation enters into this. It
was made clear that the application to the IVC should not mean to resection of time bard debt. Which in
any other form should have been dismissed. For the above it is clear that opportunity of section 9 of the
limitation act is to be strictly hardly to mainly that with time beginning of law it can not be held expect by
process known to lock. One question that arises before this court is whether section 18 of the limitation
act which extends the period of limitation debating upon the debt made in written and signed by the
corporate debtors is also applicable under section 238 A going expression as far as may be covering the
applicability of the limitation act of the IVC. The afforced question is not longer validate is rising section
of this court applied on provision of section 14 to 18 of the limitation act to the IVC. Thus in Shesh Nath
Singh versus BP corporate Bank Limited civil appeal number 9000 of 2019 after setting up rise in that
case in paragraph 57 of the limitation at act after referring to section 238 A of IVC.

Similarly under section 18 of the limitations act acknowledgement of present suffice li made under
written in respect of any written claim by opposite party case whom right is claim is fit and commence a
fresh period of limitation. From the date of which acknowledgement must be made before the period of
limitation expire. As observed above under section 238 A of the IVC makes provision of the limitation
act as far as may be applicable to proceeding before the NCLT and NCLAT. The iVC does execute
application of section 6 or 14 or 18 or any other provision of the limitation act to proceeding under IVC in
the NCLT. And the provision after limitation act are applicable to proceeding in the NCLT to execute
fissable we see no reason why section 14 to 18 of the limitation act 1963 should not applied to proceeding
under section 7 or section 9 of the IVC of course section 18 of the limitation act is not attracted in this
case since impugned appeal of the NCLAT does not proceed of the basis of any acknowledgement.

Nearer whom in the Laxmi Pati Singh vs. Union Bank of India the judgment earlier an after refereeing
to various judgement of this court include the judgment under the Babu lal then hold. Separate subject
observation has been to dealt with the in the case of the Babu lal suffices it to observed that this court
has not ruled out the application of the section 18 of the Limitation Act to the proceeding under the
get if affect the situation was so warrant . Consideration the purport of the section 238 A of court has
indicate the clarity in another and open the procedural law has been main retrospective result which
include the application and the provision of the Limitation Act. On case to case basis. Indeed the
support of amendment in the court was not reopen or revival the item per debate under the
Limitation Act. At the same time the approval of the fresh period of Limitation in term of the section
18 of Limitation act is of tis own then Acts.

Saurabh Singh