Limitation under insolvency law barred a Section 9 petition where the alleged acknowledgment of debt was disputed.

Applications under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code are governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and a Section 9 petition filed more than three years after the asserted default was held time-barred. The Tribunal also held that Section 18 of the Limitation Act could not extend limitation on the basis of a disputed acknowledgment of debt, particularly where the authenticity of the acknowledgment was itself in dispute. On that footing, the petition was found barred by limitation and not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was barred by limitation and liable to be dismissed.

Analysis: The petition was filed more than three years after the asserted date of default. The Tribunal applied Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to proceedings under the Code and held that the filing was beyond the prescribed limitation period. It further held that Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 could not be relied upon to extend limitation on the basis of the alleged acknowledgment of debt. In view of the disputed acknowledgment and the pending complaint regarding its authenticity, the claim remained disputed and did not save limitation.

Conclusion: The petition was barred by limitation and not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Applications under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code are governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and a disputed acknowledgment does not, by itself, extend limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

---