Supreme Court of India · 2023
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd v. Girnar Corrugators Pvt Ltd
(2023) SCC OnLine SC 99
Court
Supreme Court of India
Bench
3-Judge Bench
Date
2023
Citation
(2023) SCC OnLine SC 99
Background & Facts
Kotak Mahindra Bank had extended credit facilities to Girnar Corrugators Pvt Ltd, a packaging company. The borrower defaulted on repayment. The bank filed an Original Application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal to recover the outstanding dues. The borrower raised a preliminary objection that the OA was barred by limitation — arguing that the cause of action (the default in repayment) had arisen more than three years before the filing of the OA, which is the limitation period applicable to DRT proceedings under Article 137 of the Limitation Act read with the provisions of the RDDB Act.
The bank, however, relied on several subsequent acknowledgments of the debt made by the borrower — including entries in the borrower company's audited balance sheet showing the bank debt as a liability, and a letter written by the borrower to the bank acknowledging the outstanding dues and requesting a reschedulement. The bank argued that these acknowledgments, each within three years of the next, extended the limitation period under Section 18 of the Limitation Act and that the OA filed within three years of the last acknowledgment was within limitation.
The Supreme Court was required to authoritatively determine: (i) whether the Limitation Act (including Section 18 on acknowledgment) applies to DRT proceedings; and (ii) what constitutes a valid acknowledgment of debt sufficient to restart the limitation clock for DRT proceedings. This judgment resolves a significant controversy that had persisted in DRT jurisprudence for years with conflicting decisions from different High Courts and DRATs.
Key Issues Before the Court
Holdings of the Court
Holding 1 — Limitation Act Applies to DRT Proceedings
The Supreme Court held definitively that the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to proceedings before the DRT. Section 18 of the Limitation Act — which provides that a fresh limitation period begins from the date of acknowledgment of the debt — is applicable to OA proceedings under the RDDB Act. This was contested because the RDDB Act does not expressly incorporate the Limitation Act, but the Court held that in the absence of a specific limitation provision in the RDDB Act, the general law of limitation (the Limitation Act) governs. The period for filing an OA is three years from the date of accrual of the cause of action or from the date of the last valid acknowledgment, whichever is later.
Holding 2 — Balance Sheet Entry Is Valid Acknowledgment
The Court held that an entry in the borrower company's audited annual balance sheet that records the bank's loan as an outstanding liability of the company constitutes a valid acknowledgment of the debt within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. Such an acknowledgment restarts the limitation period from the date of the balance sheet. The acknowledgment in the balance sheet need not identify the specific loan or the specific bank by name — so long as the loan amount appears as a liability. This is a powerful tool for banks, as corporate borrowers are legally required to file annual audited accounts.
Holding 3 — Letter of Acknowledgment Also Restarts Limitation
The Court further held that a letter written by the borrower to the bank — acknowledging the outstanding dues, requesting a repayment schedule or reschedulement, or seeking a loan restructuring — constitutes a valid acknowledgment under Section 18. Such acknowledgment must be in writing, signed by the borrower or its authorised representative, and made before the expiry of the limitation period for the relevant cause of action. A letter sent by the borrower within the three-year period from the last default restarts the period from the date of the letter. Banks should preserve all such correspondence carefully as evidence.
Holding 4 — Acknowledgment Must Be Made Before Limitation Expires
The Court clarified an important limitation on the acknowledgment doctrine: an acknowledgment can only extend the limitation period if it is made before the expiry of the original or any previously-extended limitation period. An acknowledgment made after limitation has already run its full course cannot resurrect a time-barred claim. Borrowers should note that once the limitation period expires without a valid acknowledgment, the debt claim is time-barred and cannot be revived by any subsequent acknowledgment. However, payment of any amount (even a part) by the borrower toward the debt is treated as an acknowledgment and restarts the clock.
Practical Implications for Creditors
This judgment is a significant win for creditor banks. The confirmation that balance sheets and acknowledgment letters restart the limitation period for DRT proceedings means that banks with old NPA accounts — where the original default was more than three years ago — may still be within limitation if there has been a subsequent acknowledgment. Banks should audit their NPA portfolios to identify any post-default acknowledgments (balance sheets, correspondence, interest payments, part payments) that can be relied on to establish timely filing.
Borrowers should be aware that auditing and filing balance sheets showing bank liabilities amounts to a continuing acknowledgment. Every year's audited balance sheet that records the bank loan as a liability restarts the limitation clock for three years from the date of that balance sheet. This means that for actively operating companies filing annual accounts, the effective limitation for DRT proceedings is perpetually being extended — which is a significant risk factor for corporate borrowers with legacy NPA accounts.
Relevant Statutory Provisions
Practical Application Note
Banks with apparently time-barred NPA accounts should commission a thorough review of the borrower's balance sheets and all correspondence to identify any valid acknowledgments under Section 18 before concluding that limitation has expired. Borrowers facing DRT proceedings on old debts should examine whether the bank can establish a chain of valid acknowledgments that bridges the limitation period — if not, a limitation objection is a powerful preliminary defence. Unified Chambers provides expert limitation analysis for DRT proceedings across all sectors.
Related Judgments: