Time-barred application under IBC Section 9 dismissed for exceeding limitation period.

The Tribunal concluded that the application under Section 9 of the IBC was time-barred, as the filing exceeded the limitation period. The time spent on the winding-up petition could not be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, and the delay due to the authorized signatory's illness was not sufficiently justified for condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the application under Section 9 of the IBC was barred by limitation.
2. Whether the time spent in prosecuting the winding-up petition should be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
3. Whether the delay in filing the application under Section 9 of the IBC can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 due to the illness of the authorized signatory.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the application under Section 9 of the IBC was barred by limitation:
The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the application under Section 9 of the IBC filed by the Operational Creditor as being barred by limitation. The last payment received was on 12.07.2012, and the application under Section 9 was filed on 06.01.2020. The Appellant argued that the period during which the winding-up petition was being prosecuted in good faith should be excluded in accordance with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. However, the Tribunal found that the application under Section 9 was clearly out of limitation.

2. Whether the time spent in prosecuting the winding-up petition should be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963:
The Appellant contended that the period spent prosecuting the winding-up petition before the High Court of Allahabad should be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Tribunal noted that the winding-up petition was dismissed on merits and not on the ground of misjoinder of parties. The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant did not fulfill the conditions enumerated in Sub-Section 2 of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, as the petition was dismissed due to the inability to prove the liability of the Respondent Company.

3. Whether the delay in filing the application under Section 9 of the IBC can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 due to the illness of the authorized signatory:
The Appellant argued that the authorized signatory was ill and indisposed, which prevented the timely filing of the application under Section 9 of the IBC. The Tribunal considered the illnesses and granted a maximum extension of one hundred eighty days (180) days. However, the Tribunal found that the Appellant failed to explain the delay of about two years and ten months convincingly. Consequently, the Tribunal did not grant relaxation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for the unexplained period.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the application filed by the Appellant under Section 9 of the IBC was barred by limitation. The time spent in prosecuting the winding-up petition could not be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the delay due to the illness of the authorized signatory was not adequately explained to warrant condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. As a result, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

---