Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a petition filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. against Kumud Jain under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, claiming a default amount of Rs. 46,63,35,337.31 as of 27.11.2018, with the default occurring in June 2015. The initial petition was admitted on 06.09.2019 but was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal on 08.01.2020 due to limitation. The Supreme Court later remanded the matter back for fresh consideration, particularly focusing on whether the One Time Settlement (OTS) dated 20.12.2018 constituted a fresh contract under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the Section 7 petition on 29.08.2023, stating that the application was not based on the debt amount promised under the OTS. The Appellate Tribunal subsequently allowed the financial creditor's appeal, emphasizing that the OTS provided a fresh cause of action and that the original debt was time-barred. The court found that the OTS was a valid contract that acknowledged the liability of the corporate debtor and thus rejected the limitation defense. The final decision upheld the financial creditor's claim, allowing the CIRP to proceed based on the OTS (Paras 1-38).
Headnote
A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy - Limitation - Applicability of Limitation Act - Fresh Contract - The Adjudicating Authority concluded that the One Time Settlement (OTS) constituted a valid and enforceable contract under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, providing a fresh cause of action for the financial creditor. The default under the OTS was recognized, thus rejecting the objection regarding limitation (Paras 16-24).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is within limitation based on the One Time Settlement dated 20.12.2018.
Final Decision
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the financial creditor's claim, ruling that the OTS dated 20.12.2018 constituted a valid and enforceable contract under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, thus rejecting the limitation defense and allowing the CIRP to proceed.
Law Points
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy
- Limitation Act
- Contract Act
- One Time Settlement
- Fresh Contract
- Acknowledgment of Debt
Case Details
2026 LawText (NCLAT) (08) 27
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1453 of 2026
Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sumant Batra, Sr. Advocate
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Insolvency proceedings initiated by a financial creditor against a corporate debtor.
Remedy Sought
The financial creditor sought to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the corporate debtor.
Filing Reason
Claim of default on a financial debt.
Previous Decisions
The initial petition was admitted but later set aside due to limitation; the Supreme Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Issues
Whether the application under Section 7 is within limitation based on the OTS.
Whether the OTS constitutes a fresh contract under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that the debt was time-barred and the application could not be admitted.
The respondent contended that the OTS constituted a fresh contract, reviving the debt.
Ratio Decidendi
The One Time Settlement (OTS) constituted a fresh contract under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, allowing the financial creditor to proceed with the application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code despite the original debt being time-barred.
Judgment Excerpts
The OTS, therefore, satisfies the requirements of Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act and constitutes a fresh and enforceable contract between the parties.
The default committed by the Corporate Debtor thereunder furnished a fresh cause of action to the Financial Creditor.
The material placed on record establishes the existence of a financial debt and the occurrence of default on the part of the Corporate Debtor.
Procedural History
The financial creditor filed a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which was initially admitted but later set aside due to limitation. The Supreme Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration, leading to further appeals and decisions regarding the validity of the One Time Settlement.
Acts & Sections
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 7
- Indian Contract Act, 1872: Section 25(3)
- Limitation Act, 1963: Section 5, Article 137
