Limitation under IBC Section 9 excludes periods of statutory enforcement bar; unsupported pre-existing disputes do not defeat maintainability.

Limitation for a Section 9 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act and ordinarily runs from default, but the period during which enforcement was legally barred under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies Act must be excluded. On the facts described, the debtor's reference to BIFR meant the creditor could not enforce the claim until repeal of that Act on 01.12.2016, so the application was not time-barred. A pre-existing dispute must also be supported by real, substantive material existing before the demand notice; unsupported allegations about goods quality, cancelled orders, and losses did not suffice, so the Section 9 application remained maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was barred by limitation; (ii) whether there was a pre-existing dispute so as to render the Section 9 application not maintainable.

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

Analysis: Limitation for an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1961 and ordinarily runs from the date of default. In the present case, the debt arose from invoices of 2011-12, but the debtor had been referred to BIFR as a sick unit and the embargo under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 continued until repeal of that Act on 01.12.2016. The period during which the creditor was disabled from enforcing the claim had to be excluded, and the right to initiate insolvency proceedings accrued only after the repeal.

Conclusion: The application was not barred by limitation and this issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): whether there was a pre-existing dispute so as to render the Section 9 application not maintainable.

Analysis: A pre-existing dispute must be shown to exist before the receipt of the demand notice and must be supported by some real and substantive material. The objections raised regarding alleged poor quality of goods, cancellation of orders, and related losses were found to be unsupported by any cogent material or prior proceedings. The dispute was therefore treated as a belated and unsubstantiated defence rather than a genuine prior dispute.

Conclusion: No pre-existing dispute was established and this issue was also decided against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The insolvency admission was upheld and the appeal failed on both limitation and maintainability.

Ratio Decidendi: Where enforcement of a debt was legally suspended by Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the excluded period cannot be counted for limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1961, and an alleged pre-existing dispute must be supported by substantive material existing before the insolvency demand notice.

---