given. That of course does not mean that where a statement is made without intending to admit the existence of jural relationship, such intention should be fastened on the person making the statement by an involved and far- fetched reasoning…” (emphasis supplied) 11.1 It is also relevant to refer to judgment in Dena Bank (Supra) which held as follows: “139. Section 18 of the Limitation Act cannot also be construed with pedantic rigidity in relation to proceedings under the IBC. This Court sees no reason why an offer of one- time settlement of a live claim, made within the period of limitation, should not also be construed as an acknowledgment to attract Section 18 of the Limitation Act…” (emphasis supplied) 11 (1971) 1 SCC 67. 1212. Both these factors, acknowledgment of debt in the balance sheet as well as in the OTS proposal, have been considered by NCLAT while dismissing the appeal. The relevant portion of the NCLAT findings, after considering balance sheet entries and OTS letter