Tribunal dismisses IBC Section 9 application for recovery, citing time-barred claim and lack of evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application filed under Section 9 of the IBC for recovery of a sum of Rs. 55,66,694.76, ruling it as time-barred and lacking sufficient evidence to establish the amount as due and payable. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the transactions constituted a running account, most invoices provided were beyond the 3-year limitation period, and the claim for interest was deemed unjustified. The application was found to be within the NCLT's jurisdiction at the time of filing, but ultimately, CP (IB) No. 152/CTB/2019 was dismissed.

---

---

Issues:
- Application under Section 9 of the IBC for recovery of a sum of Rs. 55,66,694.76
- Maintainability of the application by the proprietary concern under IBC
- Authenticity of documents provided by the petitioner
- Time-barred nature of the debt based on the invoices
- Claim for interest by the petitioner
- Statutory pecuniary jurisdiction of NCLT

Analysis:
The application was filed under Section 9 of the IBC seeking recovery of a specific sum from the Corporate Debtor. The petitioner claimed that the amount was due and payable for supplies made to the Corporate Debtor. The petitioner provided details of invoices raised between 19.05.2015 to 09.12.2016, totaling 17 invoices. The petitioner also issued a demand notice under Section 8 of the IBC before filing this application.

The respondent contended that the application by the proprietary concern was not maintainable under the IBC. Additionally, the respondent raised concerns about the authenticity of documents provided by the petitioner, alleging that an acknowledgment dated 16.02.2019 was false. The respondent also argued that there were delays in supplies and that the application was time-barred.

Upon examination, the Tribunal found that most of the invoices provided by the petitioner were beyond the 3-year limitation period, except for the last invoice dated 09.12.2016. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the transactions constituted a running account. The Tribunal noted that the claim for interest by the petitioner was not justified, and the petitioner did not provide a complete Statement of Account for the entire transaction period.

Regarding the statutory pecuniary jurisdiction of the NCLT, the respondent argued that the application exceeded the jurisdiction limit. However, the Tribunal clarified that the application was filed before the jurisdiction limit was raised to Rs. 1 crore and was within the adjudicating authority's purview at the time of filing.

Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the application, ruling it as time-barred and lacking sufficient evidence to establish the amount as due and payable. The petitioner's failure to meet the legal requirements, including the limitation period and interest claim, led to the dismissal of CP (IB) No. 152/CTB/2019.

---