Appeal Dismissed: No Debt Payable or Time Barred

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal - New Delhi Bench upheld the dismissal of an appeal by "M/s. Lasa Engineers P. Ltd." against "M/s. Devas Engineering Systems P. Ltd." under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The dismissal was based on grounds of no debt payable and limitation, with the corporate debtor citing a "Nil" balance and a claim being time-barred. The tribunal found that the corporate debtor had raised a limitation plea and disputed the claim before a demand notice was issued, establishing a pre-existing dispute. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit, with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues:
1. Dismissal of application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 due to no debt payable and limitation.
2. Submission regarding the claim not being barred by limitation.
3. Legal notices issued by the appellant and respondent.
4. Communication from the corporate debtor regarding the balance being "Nil."
5. Dispute over the claim and plea of limitation by the corporate debtor.
6. Existence of a pre-existing dispute before the demand notice under section 8(1) was issued.

The judgment by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal - New Delhi Bench involved an appeal by "M/s. Lasa Engineers P. Ltd." as the operational creditor against "M/s. Devas Engineering Systems P. Ltd." the corporate debtor, under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Adjudicating Authority had dismissed the application citing no debt payable and limitation as grounds, based on a communication from the corporate debtor stating the balance as "Nil" and a claim being barred by limitation. The appellant argued that the claim was not time-barred, highlighting legal notices issued and subsequent disputes raised by the respondent. The respondent referred to a communication from 2013 indicating a "Nil" balance, which was not contested by the operational creditor. The tribunal noted the corporate debtor's specific plea of limitation after legal notices in 2016 and 2017. The judgment emphasized that the corporate debtor had disputed the claim and raised the limitation plea before a demand notice under section 8(1) was issued in December 2017, establishing a pre-existing dispute. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal due to lack of merit, with no costs awarded.

---

---