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 whether the issuance of recovery certificates or prior recovery proceedings gave rise to a fresh cause of action for initiation of insolvency proceedings.
Analysis: The Limitation Act applies to applications under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and Article 137 governs the period of limitation. Time begins to run from the date of default, and the filing of civil suits, proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, or issuance of recovery certificates does not extend limitation for a separate and independent proceeding under the Code. The reasoning in the cited precedents was applied to hold that a recovery certificate does not create a fresh trigger for filing a Section 7 application. The Adjudicating Authority was also required to examine limitation on its own in view of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Conclusion: The Section 7 application was hopelessly time-barred, and the admission order was unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: For an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, limitation runs from the date of default under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and recovery proceedings or a recovery certificate do not revive or extend that limitation period.