Appeal Dismissed, Respondent Prevails on Limitation & Dispute; Appellant's Claim Rejected.

The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of the Respondent on both issues. The application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was deemed not barred by limitation, as it fell within the three-year period post the repeal of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. Additionally, the Appellant's assertion of a pre-existing dispute was rejected due to insufficient evidence supporting their claim, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Barred by limitation - Application filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
2. Pre-existing dispute raised by the Appellant.

Analysis of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Barred by limitation - Application under Section 9 of the Code:
The appeal was filed by the Corporate Debtor against the order admitting an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by the Operational Creditor. The Operational Creditor claimed an operational debt of Rs. 4,82,98,924 accrued from supplying goods to the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor raised a limitation issue, stating that the debt occurred in 2011-12, and the application was filed in 2017, beyond the three-year limitation period. However, the Adjudicating Authority rejected this contention, citing the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, which prevented legal action until its repeal on 01.12.2016. The Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the three-year limitation period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1961, counted from the date of default. The Tribunal ruled that the application was within the limitation period post the repeal of SICA and enactment of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Issue 2: Pre-existing dispute raised by the Appellant:
The Appellant claimed a pre-existing dispute due to poor quality material supplied by the Respondent, resulting in order cancellations and losses. They alleged requesting the Respondent to lift scrap and pay freight charges, which the Respondent acknowledged during a visit. The Appellant argued that a dispute existed before the application under Section 9 was filed, citing various Supreme Court decisions. However, the Respondent contended that the Appellant's claims lacked evidence of any prior legal actions or proceedings regarding the material quality. The Appellant's objection on the pre-existing dispute was deemed unsubstantiated, as no concrete evidence was presented to support their claim. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the Appellant's arguments.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of the Respondent on both issues, finding the application under Section 9 not barred by limitation and rejecting the Appellant's claim of a pre-existing dispute due to lack of supporting evidence.

---