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 and the order admitting the corporate insolvency resolution process was liable to be set aside.
Analysis: The relevant limitation for applications under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The period begins from the date of default, and the date of classification of the account as a non-performing asset was treated as the date of default on the facts of the case. Since the default had occurred more than three years before the filing of the application and no sufficient basis was shown to extend limitation, the claim could not be revived as a live debt. The challenge that the right accrued only on the commencement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was rejected as inconsistent with the settled law on limitation.
Conclusion: The application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was barred by limitation and the admission order was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: Applications under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 are governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and limitation runs from the date of default or non-performing asset classification; if filed more than three years thereafter without valid extension, the application is time-barred.