Section 9 insolvency applications must meet disclosure and proof requirements, and unsupported acknowledgment will not save limitation.

An application under section 9 must clearly state the date of default and be supported by the prescribed documents, including the section 9(3)(c) certificate and relevant bank statements; absent these materials, the application is incomplete. Limitation also must be established on the record: an unproven acknowledgment of debt will not save time, and the pendency of earlier winding-up proceedings does not extend limitation where proceedings could still have been initiated with the required prior consent. On these grounds, the insolvency application was rejected as incomplete and time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the application under section 9 was incomplete for want of a clear date of default and the prescribed supporting documents; (ii) Whether the claim was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the application under section 9 was incomplete for want of a clear date of default and the prescribed supporting documents.

Analysis: The application did not clearly and consistently state the date of default. The record also did not contain the certificate required under section 9(3)(c) or bank statements for the relevant period to establish the state of account and post-default payments. These deficiencies prevented the application from being treated as complete.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the operational creditor and in favour of the corporate debtor.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The alleged acknowledgment of debt was not accepted as a valid acknowledgment under section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Even on assuming such acknowledgment, the limitation period would have expired before the petition was filed. The period of pendency of the earlier winding-up proceedings did not extend limitation up to the date of the Supreme Court's decision, because proceedings could still have been instituted during the intervening period with the required prior consent under the Tea Act, 1953. The petition was therefore beyond limitation.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the operational creditor and in favour of the corporate debtor.

Final Conclusion: The insolvency application was rejected because it was incomplete and time-barred, leaving the operational creditor to seek any other available remedy in law.

Ratio Decidendi: An application under section 9 must satisfy the prescribed disclosure and evidentiary requirements, and limitation cannot be extended on the basis of an unproven acknowledgment or by excluding a period during which proceedings could still have been lawfully initiated.

---