Uncrystallised debt and limitation bar defeated the insolvency claim, leaving no operational dues proved.

An uncrystallised claim for refund of training costs with interest was rejected because the entitlement depended on disputed facts about training and the employment arrangement, making it unsuitable for adjudication in a section 9 insolvency proceeding. The alleged salary dues for January and February 2017 were also not established, and the full and final settlement showed no further amount payable. The Tribunal further held that section 9 applications are governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the petition, filed more than three years after the alleged default, was time-barred. The insolvency application therefore failed on both merits and limitation, and no CIRP was ordered.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the operational creditor was entitled to refund of the training cost with interest. (ii) Whether the corporate debtor owed any amount to the operational creditor and whether the petition was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the operational creditor was entitled to refund of the training cost with interest.

Analysis: The employment agreement provided for training cost recovery if the pilot terminated the arrangement before expiry of the stipulated five-year period after completion of training. The material showed that the operational creditor had completed training, had worked for a substantial period, and had resigned. The claim for refund of the entire training cost was treated as arising from a disputed factual matrix regarding the manner and extent of training, and the Tribunal held that such an uncrystallised claim could not be adjudicated in the insolvency proceeding.

Conclusion: The claim for refund of the training cost with interest was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the corporate debtor owed any amount to the operational creditor and whether the petition was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the salary claim for January and February 2017 was not established as payable, that the full and final settlement reflected amounts already received, and that no further amount was due. It also held that applications under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 are governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and that the petition had been filed beyond three years from the alleged default. On these grounds, the petition was held to be not maintainable.

Conclusion: No amount was found due to the operational creditor, and the petition was barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The insolvency application failed on both merits and limitation, and no corporate insolvency resolution process was ordered.

Ratio Decidendi: A section 9 insolvency application must be rejected where the claim is uncrystallised or unsupported by established dues, and it is also barred if filed beyond three years from the alleged default under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

---