Information Utility Upload Alone Cannot Extend Limitation: Distinct Invoices Remain Time-Barred Under Section 9 CIRP
- REEDLAW
- 8m
- 4 min read
REEDLAW Legal News Network reports:Â In a key ruling on 27 November 2025, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal clarified that uploading documents to an Information Utility does not, by itself, extend limitation for claims under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The Tribunal emphasised that invoices relating to distinct work orders cannot be treated as a running account, and invoice-specific part payments or limited acknowledgments cannot revive claims that are otherwise barred by limitation.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson)Â and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), while adjudicating a Company Appeal, held that the Information Utility upload alone does not extend the limitation. Where invoices pertain to distinct work orders rather than a running account, invoice-specific part payments or limited acknowledgments cannot revive time-barred claims. Consequently, the Section 9 petition was held to be barred by limitation.
The Appellant filed an appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, challenging the order dated 27.05.2025 by which the Adjudicating Authority dismissed its Section 9 petition. The Appellant, acting as an Operational Creditor, had been providing operation and maintenance services for HVAC systems at multiple project sites of the Corporate Debtor’s clients. A running account mechanism was asserted, where invoices were raised along with statutory compliance documents, and payments were released only after receipt of funds from the Corporate Debtor’s clients, subject to retention deductions. When payments remained outstanding despite repeated follow-ups, the Appellant registered the operational debt with the Information Utility in 2023 and issued a Section 8 demand notice in February 2024. The Corporate Debtor disputed its liability in reply and raised issues regarding limitation and deficiencies in documentation, prompting the filing of the Section 9 application in August 2024.
In the appeal, the Appellant argued that the Adjudicating Authority erred in holding that a pre-existing dispute and time-barred the Section 9 petition. It was contended that the Corporate Debtor never disputed the IU-registered debt and had acknowledged liability through part payments on 18.02.2021 and subsequent communications in August and December 2022, thereby extending the limitation period under Sections 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act. The Appellant also maintained that the business relationship operated on a running account basis and thus the limitation should not have been computed invoice-wise.
The Corporate Debtor refuted these claims, submitting that invoices from 2010–2019 were separate, unrelated claims linked to distinct work sites and not part of a single running account. It was asserted that the Operational Creditor failed to provide necessary work orders, certified invoices, attendance records, wage registers, and statutory challans, leading to disputes recorded in several email exchanges. The Corporate Debtor emphasised that part payment in 2021 related only to specific invoices and could not extend the limitation for all invoices, thereby rendering most claims independently time-barred.
Upon examining the record, the Appellate Tribunal observed that the last invoice was issued on 02.01.2019 and the Section 9 application was filed on 29.08.2024, clearly beyond the three-year limitation period, even if computed from the 18.02.2021 part payment. The Tribunal held that the invoices related to distinct work orders across various unrelated sites and did not constitute a running account. Therefore, part payment against a few identified invoices could not revive the limitation for all other invoices. The Tribunal also found that the emails dated 11.08.2022 and 22.12.2022, when read in entirety, merely acknowledged limited liability of Rs. 15.03 lakhs subject to document verification and did not amount to an acknowledgement of the entire outstanding operational debt.
The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant failed to establish uninterrupted acknowledgement of liability within the prescribed period for each disputed invoice or demonstrate the existence of a running account that could cumulatively extend limitation. The Adjudicating Authority’s finding that the Section 9 petition was barred by limitation and involved disputed claims was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed accordingly.
Mr. Vishal Agarwal, Advocate, represented the Appellant.
Mr. Ankur Sood and Mr. Prajwal Suman, Advocates, appeared for the Respondent.
This is premium content available to our subscribers.
To access the full content related to this article — including the complete judgment, detailed legal analysis, ratio decidendi, headnotes, cited case laws, and updates on relevant statutes and notifications — we invite you to subscribe to REEDLAW’s premium research platform.
Â
Click here to Subscribe and unlock exclusive access to structured legal analysis, judicial summaries, and a comprehensive legal research database.
REEDLAW Legal Intelligence & Research is India’s most trusted legal publishing and research platform, empowering professionals with structured judicial insights and authoritative legal intelligence since 1985.
The platform offers comprehensive resources spanning Corporate Insolvency, Bankruptcy, Company Law, SARFAESI, Debt Recovery, Contract, MSMEs, Arbitration, Banking, and Commercial Laws. Through curated journals like IBC Reporter and Bank CLR, and an advanced Online Legal Research Database, REEDLAW simplifies complex legal research for professionals, institutions, and academia across India.