As per case facts, the Corporate Debtor defaulted on loans, leading to the account being declared a Non-Performing Asset in 2014. UCO Bank initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section ... 7 of the IBC in 2019. The Corporate Debtor resisted these proceedings, primarily on grounds of limitation, questioning the bank's competency, and disputing the existence of debt. Both the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) rejected these contentions, finding an acknowledgement of debt in the Corporate Debtor's financial statements and an One Time Settlement proposal. The suspended director of the Corporate Debtor subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court. The question arose whether there was a clear, unequivocal, and specific acknowledgement of debt in the balance sheets or other documents, particularly when the financial creditor's name was not explicitly mentioned, sufficient to extend the limitation period under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. Finally, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, concurring with the lower tribunals. It held that the entries in the balance sheets, combined with the auditor's note indicating defaults and long-term borrowings, unequivocally amounted to an acknowledgement of liability. The Court also affirmed that the One Time Settlement proposal further substantiated the existence of a present and subsisting debt, thus extending the limitation period as per Section 18 of the Limitation Act, reinforcing a liberal interpretation of the provision in IBC proceedings.