Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
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 period spent by the plaintiff in prosecuting proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code before the NCLT and NCLAT was liable to be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for computing limitation for the present suit.
Analysis: Section 14 requires prosecution of another civil proceeding with due diligence and good faith, relating to the same matter in issue, before a forum unable to entertain it because of defect of jurisdiction or a cause of like nature. The Court held that proceedings before the NCLT and NCLAT under Sections 9 and 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 are civil proceedings before quasi-judicial tribunals. It applied the settled principle that Section 14 must receive a liberal construction and that the expression "court" can include a tribunal having the trappings of a court. The Court further held that an abortive proceeding need not be rejected only on a jurisdictional defect in the narrow sense; dismissal of the insolvency application on account of a pre-existing dispute was sufficient to render the proceedings abortive for Section 14 purposes. On the facts, the insolvency proceedings were found to have been pursued bona fide and with due diligence.
Conclusion: The time spent in the proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was directed to be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the application was allowed in favour of the plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to bona fide and diligent insolvency proceedings before quasi-judicial tribunals that end abortively, and the exclusion of time is available where the earlier proceeding could not be entertained for a cause of like nature to defect of jurisdiction.