Company Petition Dismissed Due to Limitation - Invoices Beyond 3 Years Not Considered

The Tribunal dismissed the Company Petition primarily on the grounds of limitation. The Operational Creditor's petition for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor for an unpaid debt was deemed barred by limitation as it included invoices beyond the three-year period specified under the Limitation Act. The Tribunal referenced a previous NCLAT decision, emphasizing that all invoices must be considered in the demand notice. The issue of pre-existing disputes raised by the Corporate Debtor was not addressed due to the dismissal based on the limitation ground.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Limitation
2. Pre-existing disputes

Detailed Analysis:

1. Limitation:
- The Operational Creditor, M/s Shri Sadguru Traders, sought to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor, M/s Gajalee Coastal Foods Pvt. Ltd., under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, for an unpaid operational debt of Rs. 49,57,924/-.
- The Corporate Debtor opposed the petition on the grounds of limitation, arguing that the claims were barred by the Limitation Act as they pertained to invoices from 2015 to 2018.
- The Tribunal examined Article 14 of the Limitation Act, which stipulates a three-year limitation period from the date of delivery of goods for price recovery suits.
- The Operational Creditor contended that the last part payment of Rs. 1,70,000/- on 24.12.2018 should reset the limitation period.
- The Tribunal referred to the NCLAT decision in Next Education India Private Limited vs. K12 Techno Services Private Limited, which held that the Tribunal cannot selectively consider invoices within the limitation period if the demand notice includes all invoices.
- The Tribunal concluded that the petition was barred by limitation as it included invoices beyond the three-year period, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

2. Pre-existing disputes:
- The Corporate Debtor also argued the existence of pre-existing disputes, claiming that the goods supplied were of substandard quality and that they had made payments in cash which were not accounted for by the Operational Creditor.
- The Operational Creditor refuted these claims, stating that no complaints about the quality of goods were made prior to the demand notice and that the part payment contradicted the allegations of substandard goods.
- The Tribunal noted that since the petition was dismissed on the grounds of limitation, it did not need to address the issue of pre-existing disputes.

Conclusion:
- The Tribunal dismissed the Company Petition on the primary ground of limitation, citing the NCLAT ruling that the Tribunal cannot selectively consider invoices within the limitation period when the demand notice includes all invoices. The issue of pre-existing disputes was not addressed due to the dismissal on the limitation ground.

---