Listing-related regulatory dues are not operational debt where the agreement is invalid and the insolvency claim is time-barred.

Listing-related regulatory dues were held not to qualify as operational debt for Section 9 insolvency purposes where the claim rested on SEBI-governed listing obligations and the supporting listing agreement was incomplete and not shown to be valid after the corporate debtor's name change. The application was also found time-barred: the record did not show any fresh accrual extending limitation, and Article 137 of the Limitation Act, read with Section 238A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, applied from the admitted default date. The rejection of the insolvency application was therefore affirmed, and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was barred by limitation in view of the alleged continuing default in payment of annual listing fees; (ii) whether the dues claimed towards annual listing fees constituted operational debt and whether the absence of a valid listing agreement affected maintainability.

Issue (i): whether the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was barred by limitation in view of the alleged continuing default in payment of annual listing fees.

Analysis: The last payment was received on 28.06.2013 and the debt was shown as having fallen due on 01.04.2015. The claim was founded on successive invoices and the assertion of a continuing default, but the record did not establish a later fresh accrual of the right to apply so as to extend limitation. The Adjudicating Authority treated the default date admitted in the application as the relevant date and applied Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 through Section 238A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Conclusion: The application under Section 9 was barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): whether the dues claimed towards annual listing fees constituted operational debt and whether the absence of a valid listing agreement affected maintainability.

Analysis: The dues arose from listing arrangements and were characterised as regulatory dues linked to SEBI-governed listing obligations rather than as operational debt. The agreement relied upon was found unreliable because the document was incomplete and no fresh agreement was shown after the change of name of the corporate debtor. In that setting, the claimed amount was not treated as an enforceable operational debt for insolvency purposes.

Conclusion: The claimed dues were not accepted as operational debt and the application was not maintainable on that basis.

Final Conclusion: The order rejecting the insolvency application was affirmed and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim for listing-related regulatory dues cannot be pursued as operational debt under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 where the claim is time-barred and the supporting agreement is not shown to be valid and enforceable.

---