https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420132 The company petition was found to be within limitation because the extended completion date of the work order was treated as 28.02.2015 and the petition was filed on 09.01.2018, within three years; the limitation objection was rejected. However, pre-existing disputes were held to exist because, before the demand notice, the respondent had complained of defects, deficient work and delay, and the correspondence showed that these issues were already in controversy. As the dispute pre-dated the demand notice, the section 9 operational debt claim was not maintainable and the insolvency petition was dismissed, with other lawful remedies left open. en-us Thu, 10 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Mar 2022 08:23:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420132 The company petition was found to be within limitation because the extended completion date of the work order was treated as 28.02.2015 and the petition was filed on 09.01.2018, within three years; the limitation objection was rejected. However, pre-existing disputes were held to exist because, before the demand notice, the respondent had complained of defects, deficient work and delay, and the correspondence showed that these issues were already in controversy. As the dispute pre-dated the demand notice, the section 9 operational debt claim was not maintainable and the insolvency petition was dismissed, with other lawful remedies left open. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Thu, 10 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420132