Petition dismissed due to time-barred application and lack of proper authorization. Instructions for order distribution via email.

The Tribunal dismissed the petition, ruling that the application was not time-barred but identified significant pre-existing disputes and lack of proper authorization for filing. The case was concluded with instructions for the registry to distribute the order copies via email to all involved parties and their legal representatives.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the application is barred by limitationRs.
2. Whether a genuine pre-existing dispute exists between the partiesRs.
3. Whether the application filed without authorization of the applicant-company is maintainableRs.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether the application is barred by limitationRs.

The respondent argued that the application is barred by limitation since the last payment was made on July 15, 2015, and the application was filed on December 4, 2019, exceeding the limitation period of three years. The petitioner relied on the balance-sheets of the respondent from 2015 to 2018, filed with the Registrar of Companies, to claim acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Supreme Court's judgment in Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd. v. Bishal Jaiswal was cited, stating that entries in balance-sheets must be unequivocal to constitute acknowledgment of debt. The Tribunal noted that the balance-sheets mentioned amounts under "trade payable current" but did not specifically indicate the debt of Rs. 63,25,464. However, the respondent admitted in a reply notice dated September 6, 2019, that the amount was written off on July 20, 2018, confirming its presence in the balance-sheets until then. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the application was not barred by limitation.

Issue 2: Whether a genuine pre-existing dispute exists between the partiesRs.

Under Section 9 of the IBC, the operational creditor must prove debt, due, and dispute-free status. The respondent claimed that the debt was settled on July 15, 2015, and raised disputes regarding the quality and delay of the supplied coal. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Mobilox Innovations P. Ltd. v. Kirusa Software P. Ltd., emphasizing that the Tribunal need only determine if there is a plausible contention requiring further investigation. The petitioner claimed an amount of Rs. 63,25,464 towards principal and Rs. 1,09,27,522 towards interest at 24%. The respondent argued that the coal was supplied at higher rates than agreed, resulting in a disputed amount of Rs. 50,70,060. The Tribunal found that the petitioner did not satisfactorily explain the rate differences and that the interest claim lacked contractual basis and was exorbitant. Additionally, the petitioner failed to prove the dispatch of demand letters. The Tribunal concluded that the respondent raised substantial disputes requiring further investigation.

Issue 3: Whether the application filed without authorization of the applicant-company is maintainableRs.

The respondent objected that the application was filed without proper authorization from the applicant-company. The Tribunal noted that the application lacked averments on the competence of the person filing it and did not include a board resolution authorizing the filing. Form 5, Chapter II, Serial No. 6 requires such authorization to be enclosed. The Tribunal held that the non-filing of the board resolution goes to the root of the case, rendering the application not maintainable. Although the petitioner requested to return the petition for rectification, the Tribunal declined, citing the existence of genuine disputes and the advanced stage of the case.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the petition, concluding that the application was not barred by limitation but found substantial pre-existing disputes and lack of proper authorization for filing the application. The registry was directed to send e-mail copies of the order to all parties and their counsel.

---