Pranav B Prem

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Delhi has held that merely uploading or registering financial information on an Information Utility (IU) does not amount to acknowledgment of debt under the Limitation Act, 1963 and therefore cannot trigger a fresh limitation period for filing a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Tribunal emphasised that the Limitation Act applies strictly to insolvency proceedings, and an operational creditor cannot rely on IU records to revive a time-barred claim.

Also Read: NCLAT Delhi Upholds Order Directing Satra Properties’ Suspended Directors To Refund ₹91 Lakh Cleared During Moratorium

A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra was hearing an appeal filed by Air Wave Technocrafts Private Limited against Voltas Limited. Air Wave had filed a Section 9 application before the NCLT, Mumbai seeking initiation of CIRP for alleged unpaid dues arising from operation and maintenance services for HVAC installations at multiple client sites of Voltas, including Rashtrapati Bhawan, MGF Mega City, IIT Delhi, Tata Power, Jubilant and others between 2010 and 2019. The NCLT dismissed the petition on the ground that the claim was time-barred and also reflected pre-existing disputes.

Air Wave argued before the NCLAT that limitation stood extended due to part payment made in February 2021, email correspondence in 2022 acknowledging ₹15.03 lakh, and the registration of financial information with NeSL in 2023. It claimed that its invoices formed part of a running account and that the Section 9 petition filed in August 2024 was therefore within limitation. It also asserted that the IU record, which was deemed authenticated, should be treated as acknowledgment of the debtor–creditor relationship.

Also Read: NCLAT Rejects Challenge to Grainotch’s Resolution Plan for KSG Sugar; Non-Disclosure of Scorecard Held Inconsequential

Voltas disputed the claim and argued that the invoices were linked to separate and unrelated work orders issued to different sites over multiple years and therefore each invoice carried its own limitation period. It contended that the part payment in February 2021 pertained only to specific invoices and could not extend limitation for others. Voltas highlighted persistent disputes over missing documentation — attendance records, PF and ESIC challans, wage registers and certified invoices — and asserted that most invoices lacked mandatory certification under the purchase orders. It thus maintained that the Section 9 petition was time-barred and also hit by pre-existing disputes.

The NCLAT observed that even if the part payment of 18 February 2021 were taken as the starting point, the three-year limitation period would have lapsed in February 2024, whereas the Section 9 petition was filed only in August 2024. It further held that the applicant’s reliance on email communications was misplaced because Voltas had acknowledged liability only to the extent of ₹15.03 lakh and had disputed all other invoices. The Tribunal found that the business engagement between the parties did not operate on a running account since the invoices related to multiple independent work sites and not to one interconnected contract.

Critically, the NCLAT addressed the contention regarding the IU record and held that the “deemed authenticated” status of financial information on the IU cannot be equated with acknowledgment of debt under the Limitation Act. It held that limitation can be extended only through conduct of the debtor — such as written acknowledgment or part payment — and not by unilateral action of the creditor. The Tribunal stated that the act of storing or retrieving information on the IU “does not automatically extend the limitation period under the Limitation Act, 1963,” and rejection of IU records by the debtor indicates the absence of acknowledgment.

Also Read: NCLAT Chennai: Litigants Cannot Be Penalised for Counsel’s Non-Appearance; Orders Re-Hearing in Sagar Power Preferential Transaction Case

Finding the Section 9 petition barred by limitation and also noting clear pre-existing disputes reflected in the email chain and reply to the demand notice, the NCLAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the NCLT’s order.

Appearance

For Appellant : Advocate Vishal Agarwal, Advocate.

For Respondent : Advocates Ankur Sood and Prajwal Suman

Cause Title: Air Wave Technocrafts Private Limited Versus Voltas Limited

Case No: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1220 of 2025

Coram: Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan, Technical Member Barun Mitra