Tribunal upholds time-barred petition under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code Section 9

The Tribunal affirmed the Adjudicating Authority's decision, ruling that the petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was time-barred due to exceeding the limitation period. It was held that there was no valid acknowledgment of debt to extend the limitation period, no violation of natural justice principles occurred, and a pre-existing dispute between the parties existed. The appeal was dismissed without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) was time-barred.
2. Whether there was an acknowledgment of debt by the Corporate Debtor that could extend the limitation period.
3. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by the Adjudicating Authority.
4. Whether there was a pre-existing dispute between the parties regarding the operational debt.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Time-Barred Petition
The Appellant, an Operational Creditor, filed a petition under Section 9 of the IBC claiming a sum of Rs. 1,95,28,552/- due from the Corporate Debtor for work done. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the petition, holding it was time-barred because the invoices were beyond three years from the date of filing the petition.

The Appellant argued that the Adjudicating Authority failed to consider that the Respondent was directed to produce records, and the Tribunal had previously allowed the continuation of the application under Section 9 of the IBC. The Respondent contended that the petition was filed after a lapse of three years from the last invoice date, making it barred by limitation.

Issue 2: Acknowledgment of Debt
The Appellant claimed that the Respondent had unequivocally admitted the debt through various emails and communications, which should extend the limitation period. The Appellant cited the Supreme Court judgment in "Dena Bank Vs. C. Shivakumar Reddy and Anr." which allows for a fresh period of limitation upon acknowledgment of debt in financial statements.

The Respondent denied any such acknowledgment, arguing that the emails and balance sheets did not constitute an admission of debt. The Adjudicating Authority, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in "Babulal Vardharji Gurjar Vs. Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.," held that the claim was barred by limitation as there was no valid acknowledgment of debt.

Issue 3: Principles of Natural Justice
The Appellant alleged that the dismissal of the petition without proper hearing and without disposing of interlocutory applications was a gross violation of natural justice. The Respondent countered that the Adjudicating Authority had duly considered all documents and submissions before passing the order.

The Tribunal observed that the Adjudicating Authority had heard the parties and analyzed the documents, thus not violating principles of natural justice.

Issue 4: Pre-Existing Dispute
The Respondent argued that there was a pre-existing dispute regarding the work done and the invoices raised, which was evident from the communications and the need to engage third-party contractors. The Appellant denied these allegations, stating that the work was completed satisfactorily and the dispute was raised only to avoid payment.

The Tribunal noted that there was indeed a dispute between the parties prior to filing the Section 9 application, which further justified the dismissal of the petition.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal affirmed the order of the Adjudicating Authority, holding that the petition was time-barred, there was no valid acknowledgment of debt to extend the limitation period, the principles of natural justice were not violated, and there was a pre-existing dispute between the parties. The appeal was dismissed with no costs.

---