2019 (10) TMI 1367 - Tri - IBC

Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor committed default in making payment of outstanding debt amount - Corporate Debtor denied the liability stating that the materials were never supplied and the invoices does not bear the signature and stamp of the Corporate Debtor - Time Limitation - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the petitioner was indolent for more than three years from the date of last raised invoice dated 27.05.2015 upon the Corporate Debtor, hence this petition is hit by Law of Limitation. It is beneficial to refer the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vashdeo R. Bhojwani Vs. Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Ors. 2019 (9) TMI 711 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that The right to sue , therefore, accrues when a default occurs. If the default has occurred over three years prior to the date of filing of the application, the application would be barred Under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, save and except in those cases where, in the facts of the case, Section 5 of the Limitation Act may be applied to condone the delay in filing such application. The ratio of the judgement is applied to the facts of the case on hand, since the default occurred more than three years prior to the date of filing of this petition, the claim is barred by limitation - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Filing of Company Petition for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process due to default in payment.
2. Allegation of default by the Corporate Debtor in making payment as per the invoices raised.
3. Failure of the Corporate Debtor to pay the outstanding debt amount despite reminders.
4. Contentions raised by the Corporate Debtor regarding limitation and discrepancy in the amount claimed.
5. Application of the Law of Limitation to the case and its impact on the petition.

Analysis:
1. The Company Petition was filed by Concrete Additives & Chemicals Private Limited to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against Ravisha Infraprojects Private Limited for defaulting in payment of a specific amount, invoking Sections 8 and 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code along with relevant rules.

2. The Petitioner had supplied Hyperfluid Plus to the Corporate Debtor as per orders placed, raising invoices cum challans in 2015. Despite reminders and a Demand Notice, the Corporate Debtor failed to pay the due amount of ?12,46,373, leading to the initiation of the petition.

3. The Corporate Debtor contested the petition, arguing that the claims were time-barred due to the delay in filing after the last due date mentioned in the invoices. Additionally, discrepancies were pointed out between the amount claimed in the petition and the notice issued under Section 8.

4. The Tribunal considered the Law of Limitation, citing a Supreme Court judgment, and concluded that the petition was indeed barred by limitation as the default occurred more than three years before the filing date. The application of Article 137 of the Limitation Act was crucial in determining the fate of the petition.

5. Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the claim was time-barred, and no costs were awarded. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to limitation periods in insolvency cases, as per the legal provisions and precedents cited.