Limitation in Section 9 insolvency claims must consider later invoices within time; pre-existing dispute could not be reopened on remand.

In a Section 9 insolvency proceeding, limitation cannot be assessed by taking only the earliest invoice date where the operational creditor's invoices reflect a continuing business relationship and later supplies or services fall within the three-year period. The limitation objection was therefore unsustainable, the rejection of the application on that ground was set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration on merits. The plea of pre-existing dispute was not allowed to be reopened in the remanded proceedings because that issue had already been negatived by the appellate forum below.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 could be rejected as time-barred by treating the limitation period as running from the earliest invoice date alone; (ii) whether the respondent could be permitted to raise the plea of pre-existing dispute in the remanded proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 could be rejected as time-barred by treating the limitation period as running from the earliest invoice date alone.

Analysis: The invoices raised by the operational creditor covered a continuing business relationship and included supplies/services within the three-year period preceding the filing of the application. The limitation question could not be decided by ignoring the later invoices that were within the relevant period. The dismissal of the Section 9 application solely on the ground of limitation was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The limitation-based rejection of the Section 9 application was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration on merits.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent could be permitted to raise the plea of pre-existing dispute in the remanded proceedings.

Analysis: The plea of pre-existing dispute had already been negatived by the appellate forum below, and that aspect was kept outside the scope of reopening in the remand.

Conclusion: The respondent was not permitted to raise the pre-existing dispute plea in the remanded proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the concurrent orders rejecting the insolvency application on limitation were quashed, and the Section 9 application was directed to be considered afresh in accordance with law, with the stated restraint on reopening the pre-existing dispute plea.

Ratio Decidendi: In a Section 9 insolvency proceeding, a limitation objection cannot be sustained by fixing the starting point only from the earliest invoice when later claims within the limitation period also require consideration, and such an application must be adjudicated on its own merits.

---