Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was barred by limitation, or whether the time spent in pursuing remedies under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 could be excluded under Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Analysis: The account had been declared non-performing asset in 2013, but the financial creditor had promptly pursued the statutory remedy under the SARFAESI regime by issuing demand and possession notices and continued those proceedings until the High Court restrained further action. The period spent in those proceedings was treated as having been prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith for the same relief. On that basis, the time consumed in the SARFAESI proceedings was excluded while computing limitation for the insolvency application, bringing the Section 7 petition within the period prescribed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Conclusion: The application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was held to be within limitation, and the objection of time-bar failed.