1. The existence of a default and the existence of a debt can be ascertained under Section 7 of the I&B Code based on entry in the Information Utility or Banker's Book entries, even if the primary loan agreements are insufficiently stamped. An instrument insufficiently stamped is not enforceable; however, the fact of debt and default stands proved through other corroborative evidence like acknowledgement of debt and NESL reports. The insufficiency of stamp duty does not preclude the adjudication of the CIRP application at this stage.
2. Acknowledgement of debt, whether through separate letters, audited financial statements, or Out of Turn Settlement (OTS) proposals, extends the limitation period under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. A new date of default does not arise merely because of the date of acknowledgement; the default occurs when the debt due is not paid, and subsequent acknowledgements merely revive the claim against the running of limitation.
3. Section 10A of the I&B Code does not bar an application filed by a financial creditor if the acknowledgement of debt occurred before the restriction period, even if the invocation notice (which crystallizes the default for the guarantor) is issued later. The冠状 debtor/Principal Borrower cannot argue that the date of the last acknowledgement (within the restricted period) shifts the default date for limitation purposes regarding the Financial Creditor.
4. The primary focus of the I&B Code is the revival of the corporate debtor. While stamped documents are ordinarily the basis for contracts, the facts of existence of debt and default can be established by other reliable means. The quantum of stamp duty deficiency is the concern of the State, which may be notified to the Court/IRP for recovery from the corporate debtor during the resolution process, not a bar to initiation of insolvency proceedings.
