Limitation and regulatory dues bar insolvency relief where annual listing fees are not operational debt under the Code.

Section 9 insolvency relief was found unavailable because the application was beyond limitation on the pleaded facts, and the attempt to characterise the default as continuing was rejected. Annual listing fees were also treated as regulatory dues, not operational debt, so they could not support insolvency proceedings under the Code. The Tribunal therefore held that such dues, if recoverable at all, must be pursued through the regulatory framework rather than as an operational debt. The prior decision relied on by the appellant was found inapplicable on the facts, and the order refusing admission of insolvency was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was barred by limitation on the facts pleaded and admitted. (ii) Whether annual listing fees claimed by the appellant constituted operational debt, warranting insolvency proceedings under the Code.

Issue (i): Whether the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was barred by limitation on the facts pleaded and admitted.

Analysis: The last payment towards annual listing fee was received in 2013, while the application itself proceeded on a date of default of 01.04.2015. The Adjudicating Authority treated the claim as time-barred and the appellate forum found no material reason to interfere with that finding. The attempt to treat the default as a continuing one did not persuade the Tribunal on the record before it.

Conclusion: The application was held to be barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether annual listing fees claimed by the appellant constituted operational debt, warranting insolvency proceedings under the Code.

Analysis: The dues arose from listing requirements and were treated as regulatory dues rather than operational dues. On that basis, the Tribunal concluded that such dues were recoverable, if at all, through the regulatory framework and not as operational debt under the insolvency law. The reliance placed on the prior decision cited by the appellant was held inapplicable on the facts.

Conclusion: The claim was held not to be operational debt for the purpose of Section 9 proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order rejecting insolvency admission was sustained and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a claim is founded on listing-fee obligations treated as regulatory dues and the application is beyond the prescribed limitation period, insolvency relief under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is not maintainable.

---