Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 713
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram, J, Atul Chaturvedi, Technical Member
SUVIDHA PARKLIFT LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES & ORS. – Respondent
COMPANY PETITION NO. (IB)-3468 (ND)/2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Mr. Anant
For the Respondents: Ms. Nishi Chaudhary Adv.
Operational creditors cannot have time-barred claims accepted under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, rendering claims invalid if they lack enforceability due to limitation constraints.
Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Sections 54(1) and 60(5) - Dismissal of application for acceptance of a time-barred operational creditor's claim - The IRP rejected the applicant's claim of ₹5,23,610/- as it pertained to financial years 2009-10 and 2010-11, thus being time-barred under Section 3(6) of the Code. The IRP correctly stated that claims must be legally valid and enforceable, which the applicant's claim was not, as it lacked timely ownership. (Paras 7, 12, 14)
(B) Dissolution of Corporate Debtor - No assets were found capable of resolution and the sole creditor showed unwillingness to incur CIRP costs, rendering further proceedings futile. It was asserted that a time-barred debt does not denote a legally enforceable claim under the IBC. (Paras 11, 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, an operational creditor, sought to have its claim accepted during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process initiated by Suvidha Parklift Limited, which was appointed an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). The Corporate Debtor lacked substantial assets and revenue for several years, leading to the rejection of its claims due to their time-barred nature.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that there were no assets for liquidation, no resolution was feasible given the sole creditor's refusal to incur costs, and dissolution of the Corporate Debtor was warranted.
Issues: Whether the claims submitted were time-barred and whether the Corporate Debtor had any assets to justify continuation of the CIRP.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that debts barred by limitation equate to non-existent claims under the IBC, invalidating the operational creditor's standing. Further, the lack of assets and non-cooperation from the sole creditor led to the conclusion that continuation of CIRP would serve no purpose.
Result: The application for dissolution was granted, with the Corporate Debtor being ordered to be dissolved.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the application by the joint commissioner of revenue. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. summary of the corporate debtor's insolvency proceedings. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. discussion on the validity of the creditor's claim and limitations. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court's determination on limitations and non-cooperation of creditors. (Para 12 , 14 , 17) |
| 5. dissolution order based on lack of assets and creditor cooperation. (Para 15 , 18) |
IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI BENCH COURT-IV IN IN THE MATTER OF:
SUVIDHA PARKLIFT LIMITED ... CORPRATE DEBTOR VERSUS REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES & ORS.
. . .INFORMING PARTIES AND IN THE MATTER OF COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, WEST BENGAL .. . APPLICANT VERSUS NISHANT GAURAV GUPTA INTERIM RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL SUVIDHA PARKLIFT LIMITED .. .. RESPONDENT CORAM:
SHRI MANNI SANKARIAH SHANMUGA SUNDARAM, HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
SHRI ATUL CHATURVEDI HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Order Delivered on: 03.02.2026 PRESENT:
For the Applicant : Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Mr. Anant, Advs.
ORDER
PER: MANNI SANKARIAH SHANMUGA SUNDARAM, MEMBER (J)
1. The instant application has been preferred by Mr. Ekram Haider working as Joint Commissioner of Revenue under Directorate of Commercial Taxes, Government of West Bengal under section 60(5)(b) of the code read with Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 with the following prayers:
‘a) Allow the present application and direct the IRP to accept the claim submitted by the applicant herein (Operational Creditor)
dated 15.06.2021;
AND b) pass such further or other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper: in the facts of the present case.’
2. Briefly stated facts of the case as mentioned by the Applicant, which are relevant to the issue in question, are as follows:-
a) The Applicant submitted that the Corporate Applicant, i.e.
Suvidha Parklift Limited, had filed the Section 10 application under of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 7 of the AAA Rules, 2016, through its Director Mr. Ajay Poddar, duly authorized by Board Resolution dated
31.10.2019, seeking initiation of CIRP against itself.
b) That this Adjudicating Authority while allowing this Section 10 application vide order dated 31.05.2021, appointed Mr. Nishant Gaurav Gupta as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) of the Corporate Applicant.
c) The IRP issued a public announcement on 03.06.2021, inviting claims to be submitted by 16.06.2021. Accordingly, the Applicant submitted its claim of Rs. 5,23,610/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty-Three Thousand Six Hundred Ten only) before the IRP on 15.06.2021, along with all necessary supporting documents.
d) The Applicant submitted that vide email dated 17.06.2021, the IRP acknowledged receipt of the Applicant’s claim. Thereafter, vide email dated 22.06.2021, the IRP sought the latest demand letters from the Applicant. In response, the Applicant, vide email dated 22.06.2021, clarified that, as per available records, no order has been passed by any competent authority setting aside or modifying the demands raised by the Operational Creditor. Accordingly, the dues remain outstanding and unpaid by the Corporate Debtor as on date.
e) The Applicant submitted that vide email dated 23.06.2021, the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) arbitrarily rejected the claim of the Applicant. Thereafter, vide order dated
30.07.2021, this Adjudicating Authority allowed IA No. 3033/ND/2021 filed by the IRP and took on record the public announcement and the list of creditors, subject to all just exceptions. Subsequently, this Adjudicating Authority also allowed IA No. 3103/ND/2021 filed by the IRP, which included the progress report along with the public announcement, relevant correspondence, and the notice and agenda of the 1st meeting of the Committee of Creditors (CoC). It has been submitted that the claim of the Applicant was not included in the list of creditors solely due to the arbitrary and unwarranted rejection of the claim
