Pre-existing dispute and limitation defeated the insolvency claim under section 9 IBC, making the application non-maintainable.

A section 9 IBC application was not maintainable because the operational debt was already subject to a genuine pre-existing dispute arising from a settlement arrangement, specific performance proceedings and earlier litigation between the parties. The Tribunal treated the correspondence, registered sale deeds, memorandum of understanding and pending civil proceedings as evidence that the debt claim was contested and not a mere afterthought. The claim also failed on limitation because the invoices were raised in 2013 and the application was filed in 2019, beyond the three-year period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, with no sufficient basis shown to extend time.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petition under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was barred by a pre-existing dispute arising out of the parties' settlement and pending civil proceedings; (ii) Whether the claim based on 2013 invoices was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the petition under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was barred by a pre-existing dispute arising out of the parties' settlement and pending civil proceedings.

Analysis: The record showed that the parties had earlier negotiated settlement of the supply dues through transfer of four flats under registered sale deeds and a memorandum of understanding. The operational creditor itself had already pursued civil proceedings for specific performance, and an earlier section 9 petition on the same commercial relationship had been withdrawn. The existence of correspondence, settlement documents, and pending civil litigation demonstrated that the dispute was not a mere afterthought and that the debt claim was not free from contest.

Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable in view of the pre-existing dispute.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim based on 2013 invoices was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The invoices relied upon were raised in 2013, while the petition was filed in 2019. The proceeding under section 9 was therefore beyond the three-year limitation period applicable under article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The materials placed before the Tribunal did not establish a legally sufficient basis to extend or save limitation.

Conclusion: The claim was barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The operational creditor failed to establish a maintainable insolvency claim, as the debt was already disputed and the application was time-barred.

Ratio Decidendi: A section 9 insolvency application cannot be admitted where there is a genuine pre-existing dispute concerning the operational debt, and it is also liable to fail if filed beyond the applicable limitation period.

---