As per case facts, the appellant, a small-scale industry, sought recovery of delayed payments for transformers supplied between 1993-2004 by filing a reference in 2005-06 under the 1993 Act, which ... was continued under the MSMED Act. The High Court disallowed the claim, holding that the Limitation Act applied to conciliation/arbitration under the MSMED Act, and time-barred claims couldn't be entertained, leading to the appeal. The question arose whether the Limitation Act, 1963, applies to conciliation and arbitration proceedings under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006, and if time-barred debts can be referred to these processes. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the Limitation Act does not apply to conciliation under Section 18(2) of the MSMED Act, and time-barred claims can be referred to conciliation as the right to recover the debt subsists. However, the Limitation Act does apply to arbitration proceedings under Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act by virtue of Section 43 of the ACA, and the application of Section 22 on extending the limitation period based on disclosure is a case-to-case matter.