IBC limitation and appeal maintainability: Section 9 application held timely, with Article 137 governing accrual of the right to apply.

Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, an appeal under Section 61 was treated as not maintainable in the circumstances considered, because the delay issue in the Section 9 application did not require separate determination in light of governing Supreme Court precedent on the scope of Section 61. On limitation, the Section 9 application was held to be within time: where Article 137 of the Limitation Act applies, limitation runs from the date the right to apply accrues, and the Code's commencement on 1 December 2016 was treated as the accrual date. Article 18 was held inapplicable because the proceeding was neither a suit nor a recovery action under the Code.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was maintainable in the circumstances of the case. (ii) Whether the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was maintainable in the circumstances of the case.

Analysis: The appeal was not entertained on the footing that the question of delay in filing the Section 9 application did not call for decision in view of the governing Supreme Court precedent on the scope of an appeal under Section 61.

Conclusion: The appeal was held to be not maintainable on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The applicable limitation, if Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applied, runs from the date the right to apply accrues. Since the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 came into force on 1 December 2016, the right to file the Section 9 application was treated as having accrued from that date, and the application filed within three years was treated as timely. Article 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was held inapplicable because the proceeding was not a suit or a recovery proceeding under the Code.

Conclusion: The application under Section 9 was held to be within limitation and not time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The impugned admission order was left undisturbed and the appeal failed both on maintainability and on limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: For an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, where Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies, limitation runs from the date the right to apply accrues, and Article 18 does not govern such proceedings.

---