Case title:
Shankar Khandelwal v. Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.
Date of Order:
29 April 2026
Bench:
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha & Justice Alok Aradhe
Parties:
- Appellant: Shankar Khandelwal (Director of Corporate Debtor)
- Respondent: Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.
SUBJECT
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Limitation – Whether admission of claim by Resolution Professional constitutes acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of Limitation Act.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- Section 7, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
- Section 18, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
- Section 18, Limitation Act, 1963
- CIRP Regulations, 2016
OVERVIEW
The Supreme Court set aside the NCLAT judgment which had treated admission of a claim by a Resolution Professional (RP) as an acknowledgment of debt, thereby extending the limitation period for initiating CIRP. The Court held that such admission is merely administrative and does not amount to acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether limitation for filing a Section 7 IBC application is extended by RP’s admission of claim.
- Whether such admission qualifies as acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act.
- Whether the CIRP application filed was within limitation.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- Limitation began from date of default (NPA: 6 Dec 2016) and expired in 2019.
- Admission of claim by RP is only an administrative step, not a conscious acknowledgment.
- RP has no adjudicatory power; hence cannot bind the corporate debtor.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- Admission and subsequent updating of claim in earlier CIRP constituted acknowledgment.
- Such acts reflected subsisting liability and extended limitation under Section 18.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The Court emphasized that acknowledgment under Section 18 requires a conscious and unequivocal admission of liability by the debtor.
- RP’s role is limited to collation and verification of claims, not adjudication.
- Admission of claim is a clerical/administrative act, merely recording or entering the claim.
- Such admission is “akin to mere recital/reference of debt”, which cannot extend limitation.
- The Court reiterated that limitation runs from date of default, not from procedural steps in CIRP.
- Accordingly, the NCLAT erred in treating RP’s actions as acknowledgment.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court clarified that admission of a claim by an RP does not amount to acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act and cannot extend limitation for initiating CIRP. Consequently, time-barred claims cannot be revived through such administrative acts, reinforcing strict adherence to limitation principles in insolvency proceedings.
