Voluntary liquidation claims must be filed within limitation and before dissolution; late intervention cannot be entertained.

An intervention claim in voluntary liquidation was held time-barred where it was raised only in 2019 on the basis of an invoice and earlier correspondence, despite the liquidator having called for claims in 2018 with a last date of 07.03.2018. The three-year period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act had expired, so the claim could not be entertained. The intervention was also impermissible after the liquidator had completed the prescribed liquidation steps, distributed proceeds, closed the liquidation account, and filed the final report before dissolution under Section 59(7) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. A claim not filed within the statutory time and sought only after substantial completion of liquidation should not be admitted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the intervention application filed in the voluntary liquidation proceedings was barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. (ii) Whether the intervention application could be entertained after completion of the voluntary liquidation process and filing of the dissolution application under Section 59(7) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Issue (i): Whether the intervention application filed in the voluntary liquidation proceedings was barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: The application was based on an invoice raised in 2015 and the liquidator had invited claims in February 2018 with a last date of 07.03.2018, but no claim was filed within time. The Court held that even if the later email of 18.07.2016 was taken into account, the application filed on 28.08.2019 was beyond the three-year period applicable under Article 137. The earlier notices and correspondence did not alter the fact that the claim was not pursued within limitation.

Conclusion: The intervention application was time-barred.

Issue (ii): Whether the intervention application could be entertained after completion of the voluntary liquidation process and filing of the dissolution application under Section 59(7) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The liquidator had completed the prescribed voluntary liquidation steps, distributed the proceeds, closed the liquidation bank account, and filed the final report before seeking dissolution. The Court held that the respondent neither filed a claim before the liquidator within the prescribed time nor filed proof of claim before the Tribunal, and the intervention was sought only after the liquidation process had substantially concluded. In that setting, the Tribunal erred in entertaining the intervention application.

Conclusion: The intervention application ought not to have been entertained at that stage.

Final Conclusion: The order allowing intervention was unsustainable and was set aside, with the appeal succeeding in full.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim raised by way of intervention in voluntary liquidation proceedings must be within the period of limitation and cannot be entertained after the liquidation process has been completed and the statutory claim period has lapsed.

---