Transaction-wise limitation bars composite insolvency claims when time-barred dues are mixed with a potentially timely demand.

Section 9 insolvency limitation must be assessed transaction-wise, and a composite demand cannot be admitted if it mixes time-barred dues with a claim that may still be within time. Separate purchase orders and different work sites were treated as independent transactions, so limitation could be extended only for liability linked to the M.P. site through the last payment on 27.06.2016. The alleged e-mail was not accepted as an acknowledgement of liability under section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. As the petition was founded on a mixed claim including barred amounts, the NCLT rejected the insolvency application.

---

---

Issues: Whether the operational creditor's section 9 petition was barred by limitation, and whether a petition combining time-barred claims with a claim said to be within limitation could be admitted.

Analysis: The claim arose from separate purchase orders and different work sites. The limitation period could be extended only for the liability relatable to the M.P. site by the last payment received on 27.06.2016, and not for the other independent transactions. The alleged e-mail was not treated as an acknowledgement of liability within the meaning of section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The petition, however, was founded on a composite demand that included amounts already barred by time, and such a defective mixed claim could not be enforced under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Conclusion: The petition was barred by limitation and was not admissible on the basis of a composite claim containing time-barred dues.

Final Conclusion: The insolvency petition was rejected, leaving the petitioner free to pursue its claim before the competent forum in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: For a section 9 insolvency application, limitation must be assessed transaction-wise, and a composite petition that includes time-barred claims cannot be admitted merely because one component claim may still be within limitation.

---