Limitation and statutory demand notice requirements bar a Section 9 insolvency petition where limitation expired and delivery proof is absent.

An application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was found time-barred because the default arose from invoices last dated 24.04.2012, the debtor's acknowledgment dated 01.04.2014 extended limitation only until 01.04.2017, and the later payment dated 28.05.2019 fell outside the three-year period under Article 137 and did not revive limitation under Sections 18 or 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The application was also held not maintainable because service of the statutory demand notice is mandatory under Section 9 read with Rule 5 of the 2016 Rules, and the record contained no proof of delivery to the corporate debtor. The petition was therefore liable to be rejected on both grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was barred by limitation; (ii) Whether the absence of proof of delivery of the demand notice vitiated maintainability of the application.

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

Analysis: The default was linked to invoices whose last date was 24.04.2012. The corporate debtor's acknowledgment dated 01.04.2014 extended limitation only up to 01.04.2017. The subsequent payment dated 28.05.2019 was beyond the three-year period and, therefore, did not attract Sections 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The application under Section 9 had to be filed within the prescribed period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Conclusion: The application was barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the absence of proof of delivery of the demand notice vitiated maintainability of the application.

Analysis: Service of the demand notice is a mandatory requirement for an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. The record did not contain proof of delivery of the notice to the corporate debtor.

Conclusion: The application was not maintainable for want of proof of delivery of the demand notice.

Final Conclusion: The insolvency petition could not be entertained and was liable to be rejected on both limitation and maintainability grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: An application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 must be filed within the prescribed limitation period, and compliance with the statutory demand notice requirement is mandatory for maintainability.

---