https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288363 An application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was found barred by limitation because the invoices and pleaded default dated back to 2013-2014, the demand notice was issued in 2018, and article 137 of the Limitation Act applied from the date the right to apply accrued; section 18 did not cure the delay on the facts found. The petition was also held not maintainable because prior correspondence, cancellation of work orders, arbitration proceedings, and a pending challenge to the arbitral award showed a real pre-existing dispute that arose before the demand notice. The insolvency application was rejected and CIRP was not triggered. en-us Wed, 26 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Jun 2020 22:27:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288363 An application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was found barred by limitation because the invoices and pleaded default dated back to 2013-2014, the demand notice was issued in 2018, and article 137 of the Limitation Act applied from the date the right to apply accrued; section 18 did not cure the delay on the facts found. The petition was also held not maintainable because prior correspondence, cancellation of work orders, arbitration proceedings, and a pending challenge to the arbitral award showed a real pre-existing dispute that arose before the demand notice. The insolvency application was rejected and CIRP was not triggered. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 26 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288363