Facts & Background:

• Mr. Vidyasagar Prasad, suspended director of the Corporate Debtor was the Appellant.
• Respondent No. 1 was the UCO Bank, Financial Creditor, and Respondent No. 2 was the Corporate Debtor.
• The Corporate Debtor availed loan and credit facilities from UCO Bank and a consortium of banks under agreements executed between 2010 and 2012 for its Thermal Power Plant. However, the Corporate Debtor (Respondent No. 2) defaulted on repayment, and his account was declared a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 05.11.2014.
• On 13.02.2019, UCO Bank instituted an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, seeking initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor.
• The Corporate Debtor challenged the application on the grounds of limitation, inadequacy of the signatory's authority, and absence of any liability to make payment under the terms of the agreement.
• The NCLT upheld the General Manager’s authority to apply, holding that the disbursed amount constituted a loan upon examining the relevant agreements and rejected the Corporate Debtor’s contention that no debt existed.
• Further, the NCLT dismissed the objection on limitation, holding that the Corporate Debtor’s financial statements and auditor’s report for 31.03.2017 acknowledged the debt and that the CIRP initiation on 13.02.2019 was within the limitation period.
• The Appellant challenged the admission of the Section 7 application for CIRP initiation and Insolvency Resolution Professional appointment before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, which dismissed the appeal after considering the same arguments.
• Hence the present appeal.
  

Main Issue:

• Did the Adjudicating Authority and NCLAT rightly admit the Section 7 application under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, by holding that the Corporate Debtor’s financial statements acknowledged the debt within the limitation period?