Petition under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code rejected as time-barred with pre-existing disputes.

The Tribunal rejected the petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, citing it as time-barred due to the completion of work in 2010 and filing in 2019. Additionally, pre-existing disputes between the parties were noted, further justifying the petition's rejection. The Tribunal clarified that its decision did not reflect an opinion on the dispute's merits and directed the Registry to inform both parties promptly.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the Petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
2. Limitation period for filing the petition.
3. Existence of pre-existing disputes between the parties.
4. Entitlement to interest on the unpaid operational debt.
5. Appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016:
The petition was filed by the Operational Creditor under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor for unpaid operational debt. The Corporate Debtor argued that the petition is not maintainable and should be rejected as the claims are barred by limitation and there is a pre-existing dispute.

2. Limitation Period for Filing the Petition:
The Corporate Debtor contended that the petition is barred by limitation. The supply, installation, and erection of the system were completed in August 2010, and the last invoice was raised on 28.02.2014. According to the Corporate Debtor, the limitation period expired in 2017, and the Demand Notice was issued on 26.12.2018, making the petition time-barred. The Tribunal agreed with this contention, observing that the work was completed in 2010 and the application was filed on 26.06.2019, thus beyond the prescribed limitation period.

3. Existence of Pre-existing Disputes Between the Parties:
The Corporate Debtor argued that there were pre-existing disputes between the parties, which disentitled the petitioner from maintaining the petition. The Tribunal noted that the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation had replaced the Operational Creditor and levied liquidated damages for breach of contract. The Tribunal observed that there was an existence of dispute between the parties before the Demand Notice was issued by the Operational Creditor.

4. Entitlement to Interest on the Unpaid Operational Debt:
The Operational Creditor claimed interest on the unpaid operational debt at the rate of 20.25% per annum. However, the Corporate Debtor argued that there was no provision for payment of interest in the contract or purchase orders, and thus, the Operational Creditor was not entitled to any interest. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in its final decision, as the petition was rejected on other grounds.

5. Appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP):
The Operational Creditor did not suggest any name for an IRP. The Tribunal noted that if the petition were to be admitted, an IRP would need to be appointed. However, since the petition was rejected, the appointment of an IRP was not required.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal rejected the petition on the grounds of limitation and the existence of pre-existing disputes. It was observed that the application was time-barred as the work was completed in 2010 and the petition was filed in 2019. Additionally, there were pre-existing disputes between the parties before the Demand Notice was issued, further justifying the rejection of the petition. The Tribunal clarified that its observations should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the dispute and that the rights of the applicant before any other forum would not be prejudiced by the rejection of the application. The Registry was directed to communicate the order to the petitioner and respondent by Registered Post/Speed Post at the earliest.

---