Limitation and pre-existing dispute bar insolvency admission where the debt claim is stale and contested before notice.

An application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was not maintainable because the underlying claim was time-barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963; completion of work in 2010 and the much later 2019 filing placed the claim beyond limitation, and a belated acknowledgment could not revive it under Section 18. The application was also barred because correspondence on payment adjustment, liquidated damages, and contractual performance showed a pre-existing dispute before the demand notice, attracting the statutory bar on admission. On both grounds, the insolvency petition could not be admitted.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was barred by limitation; (ii) whether there existed a pre-existing dispute between the parties before issuance of the demand notice so as to bar admission of the application.

Issue (i): whether the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The work under the contract was completed in 2010 and the last invoices relied upon by the applicant were much earlier than the filing of the petition. The petition was instituted in 2019, long after the period prescribed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The asserted acknowledgment was also found to be beyond the expiry of limitation and therefore could not revive a dead claim under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Conclusion: The application was held to be barred by limitation and this issue was decided against the applicant.

Issue (ii): whether there existed a pre-existing dispute between the parties before issuance of the demand notice so as to bar admission of the application.

Analysis: The record showed correspondence regarding adjustment of payments, deduction of liquidated damages, and disagreement concerning the contractual obligations before the demand notice was issued. These materials demonstrated that the dispute was not created after the notice but had arisen earlier, attracting the bar under Section 9(5)(ii)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Conclusion: The existence of a pre-existing dispute was established and this issue was decided against the applicant.

Final Conclusion: The insolvency application could not be admitted because the claim was time-barred and was also hit by a pre-existing dispute between the parties.

Ratio Decidendi: An application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is not maintainable when the claim is time-barred and the material shows a dispute existing prior to the demand notice.

---