Insolvency Petition Rejected for Time-Barred Claim: OPG Metals vs. Pavai Alloys

The Company Petition filed under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 by OPG Metals Private Limited against Pavai Alloys & Steels Private Limited was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority. The Authority found the claim time-barred as the last invoice was issued beyond the limitation period and noted the Petitioner's suppression of material facts regarding the Respondent's reply to the Demand Notice. Consequently, the petition was rejected due to the Petitioner's false information in the affidavit filed. The Registry was directed to communicate the order to both parties.

---

---

Issues:
Company petition under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 for unpaid dues.

Analysis:
The case involves a Company Petition filed by OPG Metals Private Limited against Pavai Alloys & Steels Private Limited under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016. The Petitioner, engaged in manufacturing M.S Billets, supplied products to the Respondent, engaged in the business of steels & alloys, under specified invoices. The Petitioner claimed that the Respondent accepted the products without dispute initially but later stopped payments towards outstanding invoices. After sending a Demand Notice for payment, the Petitioner sought to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Respondent.

The Respondent's counsel opposed the petition, arguing it was false and time-barred. The Respondent claimed that the last invoice was raised on 09.10.2013, exceeding the limitation period. Additionally, the Respondent alleged that the Petitioner failed to disclose the Respondent's reply to the Demand Notice, which indicated suppression of material facts. The Respondent contended that the petition should be rejected for this reason.

After considering the submissions, the Adjudicating Authority found that the claim was time-barred as the last invoice was issued on 09.10.2013. Furthermore, the Authority noted that the Petitioner had suppressed the fact of the Respondent's reply to the Demand Notice, indicating false information in the affidavit filed. Consequently, the Authority rejected the petition due to the Petitioner's suppression of material facts.

In conclusion, the Company Petition was rejected, and the Registry was directed to communicate the order to both the Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor.

---