Tribunal upholds rejection of application under Section 9 of the Code as time-barred.

The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision to reject the Appellant's application under Section 9 of the Code as time-barred. Despite the Appellant's arguments for condonation of delay based on a legal notice and bank guarantee request, the Tribunal found no valid reason to extend the limitation period. The Adjudicating Authority's determination that the limitation expired on 30.03.2017 was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appellant filed appeal against dismissal of application under Section 9 of the Code by Adjudicating Authority.
2. Appellant claimed unpaid amount for five invoices, with the last payment due on 10.04.2014.
3. Adjudicating Authority rejected application as time-barred, citing limitation expired on 30.03.2017.
4. Appellant argued for condonation of delay based on legal notice and bank guarantee request.
5. Tribunal analyzed submissions and upheld Adjudicating Authority's decision, dismissing the appeal.

Analysis:
The Appellant filed an appeal challenging the dismissal of their application under Section 9 of the Code by the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellant claimed to be an Operational Creditor with unpaid amounts for five invoices, the last payment due on 10.04.2014. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application as time-barred, stating that the limitation expired on 30.03.2017, with no grounds for extension provided. The Appellant argued for condonation of delay, citing a legal notice sent on 25.04.2014, requesting payment within seven days, and a subsequent reply from the Corporate Debtor asking for a bank guarantee. However, the Tribunal found no valid reason for extending the limitation period.

The Tribunal reviewed the documents submitted by the Appellant, confirming that the last payment was due on 10.04.2014. Despite the bank guarantee request in the Corporate Debtor's reply to the legal notice, the Tribunal emphasized that such a request does not affect the running of the limitation period. The Appellant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Tribunal concluded that the Adjudicating Authority rightly rejected the application as time-barred, as no grounds for extension were presented. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the Adjudicating Authority.

---