Sir given that the intent was not to package the code as the fresh opportunity for creditors

and
claimant who did not exercise their remedy under existing laws within the prescribed limitation
period. The committee thought it fit to visit precise the specific limitation act to the court. The
relevant entry under the limitation act may be on a case to case basis. It was further noted that
the limitation act may not apply to application of cooperate applicant as these are initiated by
the applicant or its own attentive for the purpose of CIRP and I may not in the form of a creditors
remedy. A perusal of the above would show that considering that the Limitation Act applies
only to ports only made statutorily applicable to tribunals. The committee was of the view that
such act should be made to apply to the IPC as well. Observing that though the IPC is not debt
recovery law. The trigger may default in payment of debt would render the exclusion of the law
limitation counter intuitive. Thus it was made clear that an application to the IPC should not
amount to resurrection of time bard debts which in any other form would have been dismissed
on the ground of limitation.
From the above it is clear that the principle of section 9 of the Limitation act is to be strictly ad
here to namely that when time begins to run. It cannot be faulted except by a process known to
law. one question that arise before this court is whether section 18 of the limitation act which
extends the period of limitation depending upon an acknowledgement of debt made in writing
and signed by the cooperate debtor is also applicable under section 238A given the expression as
far as may be governing the applicability of the Limitation Act to the IPC. The aforesaid question
is no longer the validity as to recent judgment of this court have applied the provision of section
14 and section 18 of the Limitation act to the IPC. Thus in Says Nath Singh vs. V P Cooperative
Bank Limited Civil Appeal No. 9000 of 2013 after setting up his issues arose in that case in
paragraph 57 and after referring Section 238A of IPC.
Similarly under section 18 of the Limitation Act and acknowledgment of present subsisting
liability made in writing in respect of any right claimed by the opposite part and signed by the
party against whom the right is claimed has the affect of commencing of the fresh period of
Limitation from the debt of which the acknowledgment is signed. However the acknowledgment
must be made before the period of Limitation expire as observed above section 238A of the IPC
makes the provision of the Limitation Act as far as may be applicable before the proceedings
before the NCLT and NCLAT. The IPC does not include the application of section 6 or 14 or 18
or any other provisions of the Limitation Act to the proceedings under the IPC in the NCLT of
the provision of the Limitation Act are applicable to the proceedings of the NCLT to the extent
fissible. We see no reason why section 14 and 18 of the Limitation Act 1963 should not apply to
proceedings under section 7 or section 9 of the IPC. Of course section 18 of the Limitation Act
is not attracted in this case. Since the impugned order of the NCLAT does not proceed on the
basis of any acknowledgment.
Nearer home in Lakshmi Path Singh vs. Union Bank of India a judgment earlier delivered this
court after referring to various judgment of this court. Including the judgment in Babu Lal then
held. The support of such observation has been dealt with in the case of Babu Lal as suffice is to
observe that this court had not rule out the application of section 18 of the Limitation Act to the
proceedings under the court. If the fact situation of the case so warrant considering that the per
port of section 238A of the court is indicated as calefactory in nature being the procedural law is
not given retrospective package which included application of the provision of the Limitation
Act of case to case basis indeed the support of amendment in the court was not to reopen or
revive the time bard debts under the Limitation Act. At the same time approval of fresh period of
limitation in terms of section 18 of the Limitation Act is on its own that act.
AVANEESH PRATAP