Tribunal dismisses company petition under Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016; time-barred claim found invalid.

The Tribunal rejected the company petition under section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as the claim for outstanding invoices was found to be time-barred. The claim included amounts beyond the limitation period, rendering it unenforceable. The Tribunal emphasized that combining time-barred claims with those within the limitation period does not validate a defective claim. The Operational Creditor was permitted to pursue the claim through appropriate channels, with the petition against the Corporate Debtor being dismissed due to the limitation issue.

---

---

Issues involved:
Company petition under section 9 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I&B Code) for outstanding invoices; Time-barred claim; Application of Limitation Act to I&B Code applications; Filing a single petition for claims from different work orders.

Analysis:
1. The petition was filed by an Operational Creditor against the Corporate Debtor for outstanding invoices raised under four different work orders for various work sites. The total amount in default was detailed for each site, totaling to Rs. 64,70,071. The Petitioner sent a Demand Notice under section 8 of I&B Code demanding the outstanding claim.

2. The Respondent argued that the claim was time-barred as the last payment for three sites was made before the petition was filed. The Petitioner contended that the claim was not barred by limitation, citing a payment made for the M.P. site in 2016. The Respondent also claimed that invoices raised from 2011 to 2015 were time-barred.

3. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court decision stating that the Limitation Act applies to applications under I&B Code, and the right to sue accrues when a default occurs. The Petitioner relied on a NCLAT order allowing a single petition for claims from different agreements under section 9 of I&B Code.

4. The Tribunal found that the claim was time-barred as the last payment relied upon by the Petitioner was for the M.P. site only, not for all agreements. The claim amounting to Rs. 35,50,370 for goods provided to the M.P. site was within limitation, but the total claim of Rs. 64,70,071 included time-barred amounts.

5. The Tribunal rejected the petition as the debt was barred by the law of limitation. It was emphasized that a time-barred claim cannot be combined with a claim within the limitation period to make a defective claim enforceable. The Petitioner was allowed to raise its claim before the competent authority unaffected by the rejection.

6. The Tribunal did not deliberate on the merit of the case due to the time-barred debt issue. The petition under section 9 of I&B Code against the Corporate Debtor was rejected, and the Registry was directed to communicate the order to the Operational Creditor promptly. A compliance report was to be submitted by the Designated Registrar.

---