Limitation bars Section 9 insolvency claims where debt is time-barred and later acknowledgment cannot revive it.

A Section 9 insolvency application was not maintainable because the claimed operational debt had already become time-barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The invoices dated 2012-13, with the last invoice dated 16.02.2013, meant the three-year limitation period expired in 2016. A 2017 letter and a cheque issued after expiry could not revive or extend limitation, as acknowledgment or part-payment made after the limitation period had lapsed is ineffective for that purpose. The petition filed in 2019 was therefore rejected as barred by limitation and for want of a live, enforceable claim.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was maintainable when the claimed debt and default were already barred by limitation, and whether the 2017 letter and part-payment extended the limitation period.

Analysis: The invoices relied on were raised in 2012-13 and the last invoice was dated 16.02.2013, so the period of three years under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 expired in 2016. The letter issued in 2017 and the cheque for Rs. 5,00,000/- were sent after expiry of limitation and therefore could not revive or extend the limitation period. On that basis, the application filed in 2019 was held to be barred by limitation and not maintainable.

Conclusion: The Section 9 application was not maintainable and was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The insolvency petition failed at the threshold for want of a live, enforceable claim within limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: A Section 9 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 cannot be maintained on a debt already barred by limitation, and an acknowledgment or part-payment made after expiry of limitation does not extend or revive the limitation period.

---