Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 460

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI [Arising out of the Impugned Order dated 27.05.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in C.P. (IB) No. 939/MB/2024]
In the matter of:
Air Wave Technocrafts Private Limited (CIN: U74900DL2008PTC176589)
Registered office at:
Shop No.-8, 21 Veer Savarkar Block, Surya Complex, Shakarpur, Delhi-110092 Ph. No.: 8920982384, EMAIL ID: sharma.awt@gmail.com .… Appellant Versus Voltas Limited, Voltas House 'A'DR Babasaheb Ambedkar Rd, Chinchpokli, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400033 E-mail: akmohanta@voltas.com ;
amitbanerjee@voltas.com ;
sudeepmendhe@voltas.com ;
cvinod@voltas.com Ph. No.: 9820913499 And also at:
A-43, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 Ph. No.: 9999191031 (Mr. Joginder Singh)
: 9958229916 (Mr. Amit Banerjee)
…. Respondent Present:
For Appellant : Mr. Vishal Agarwal, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Ankur Sood and Mr. Prajwal Suman, Advocates.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Vishal Agarwal
For the Respondents: Mr. Ankur Sood, Mr. Prajwal Suman

The acknowledgment of debt to extend the limitation period must be explicit and relate to specific invoices; general statements and actions do not suffice.

Headnote:(A) Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Dismissal of Section 9 application - The Tribunal dismissed the operational creditor's claim due to a pre-existing dispute and the claim being time-barred - Part payments made by corporate debtor did not extend limitation for all invoices as the invoices related to distinct contracts without a continuous cause of action - Court affirmed that the acknowledgment of debt must be explicit and within the limitation period for it to extend the time limit. (Paras 8, 11, 30)

(B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 18 - Acknowledgment of liability must be clear and linked to specific invoices to reset the limitation period - Mere submission of information to Information Utility insufficient to revive time-barred claims. (Paras 21, 30)

Facts of the case:
The operational creditor, Air Wave Technocrafts, provided services to Voltas Limited and raised invoices for outstanding payments from services rendered between 2010 and 2019. The corporate debtor disputed the claims, citing a lack of supporting documentation and raised the issue of limitation.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal ruled that the claims were time-barred as the invoices were from a period exceeding three years at the time the application was filed and held that there existed pre-existing disputes between the parties.

Issues: The primary issues concern the existence of a pre-existing dispute and whether the operational creditor's claim was time-barred.

Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal determined that part payments regarding specific invoices did not extend limitation for other invoices when the claims stem from unrelated contracts, and acknowledgment of debt must be made before the expiration of the limitation period.

Result: The appeal was dismissed.

Table of Content
1. introduction of the appeal details. (Para 1)
2. factual background of operational debt claim. (Para 2)
3. appellant's arguments on application dismissal. (Para 3)
4. corporate debtor's rebuttal regarding claims. (Para 4)
5. court's consideration of submitted arguments. (Para 5 , 6)
6. key dates and events in the dispute. (Para 7)
7. court analysis of limitation applicability. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
8. court evaluation of acknowledgment of debt. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
9. evaluation of correspondence for acknowledgment. (Para 15 , 16)
10. assessment of submission to information utility. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
11. consideration of demand notice and its implications. (Para 21 , 22)
12. court's conclusion on limitation issue. (Para 23)
13. additional consideration of pre-existing dispute. (Para 24)
14. corporate debtor's position on pre-existing dispute. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
15. final conclusion of the appeal dismissal. (Para 30)

JUDGMENT

(Hybrid Mode)

Per: Barun Mitra, Member (Technical)

The present appeal filed under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (‘IBC’ in short) by the Appellant arises out of the Order dated 27.05.2025 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’) passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench-I) in C.P. (IB) No. 939/MB/2024. By the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has dismissed Section 9 application filed by the Appellant-M/s Air Wave Technocrafts Private Limited. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant.

2. Making submissions on behalf of the Appellant-Operational Creditor, the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Operational Creditor had been engaged by the Corporate Debtor for providing services to their clients for operation and maintenance of HVAC systems located at various work sites and that a running account was maintained with the Corporate Debtor for this purpose. Elucidating on the payment mechanism, it was submitted that the Operational Creditor raised invoices for the payment for services rendered, supported by necessary documents like ESI/PF challans and Wages Register etc. to the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor after necessary verification would forward these invoices/documents to their clients for whom the Operational Creditor had performed their services. Once the clients released payments to the Corporate Debtor, after making TDS deduction, the Corporate Debtor would in turn release payments to the Appellant after holding back some amount as retention money. It was submitted that the Corporate Debtor later on failed to discharge their payment obligations. Subsequent correspondences with the Corporate Debtor regarding the outstanding invoices only yielded a response from the Corporate Debtor that the outstanding dues have been put up for commercial verification. Since the outstanding debt continued to remain unmet and unpaid, the Operational Creditor registered the debt of the Corporate Debtor with the Information Utility (“IU” in short) on 13.02.2023 and 19.06.2023. As an amount of an operational debt of Rs 1,20,46,835/- had purportedly fallen due, a Demand Notice under Section 8 in Form-3 was sent on 17.02.2024 through the IU. The Corporate Debtor sent their reply to the Section 8 Demand Notice on 04.03.2024. The Corporate Debtor did not make further payments and instead disputed the outstanding liability including raising the issue of limitation. The Appellant therefore filed a Section 9 application for initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor on 29.08.2024 which was dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority on 27.05.2025.

3. Assailing the impugned order, it was contended that the Adjudicating Authority had wrongly rejected the Section 9 application primarily on the grounds of pre-existing dispute and bar of limitation. It was contended that the Corporate Debtor had never disputed the operational debt registered with the IU. Thus, when no disputes were rai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 460

The acknowledgment of debt to extend the limitation period must be explicit and relate to specific invoices; general statements and actions do not suffice.

Cases Referred (1)