Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The appeal challenged the admittance of a Section 95 application filed by the Financial Creditor, contending it was time-barred. The key issue was whether a letter dated 12.06.2017 from the Appellant to the Financial Creditor constituted an acknowledgement u/s 18 of the Limitation Act, extending the limitation period by three years from 12.06.2017. The NCLAT held that the letter clearly acknowledged the debt, and as per Supreme Court precedents, an acknowledgement by a borrower or guarantor extends the limitation period u/s 18. Considering the exclusion of time from 15.03.2020 to 25.03.2021 due to the Supreme Court's order, the application filed on 30.09.2021 was within the extended limitation period. Consequently, the NCLAT dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Adjudicating Authority's order holding the application as timely.
The appeal challenged the admittance of a Section 95 application filed by the Financial Creditor, contending it was time-barred. The key issue was whether a letter dated 12.06.2017 from the Appellant to the Financial Creditor constituted an acknowledgement u/s 18 of the Limitation Act, extending the limitation period by three years from 12.06.2017. The NCLAT held that the letter clearly acknowledged the debt, and as per Supreme Court precedents, an acknowledgement by a borrower or guarantor extends the limitation period u/s 18. Considering the exclusion of time from 15.03.2020 to 25.03.2021 due to the Supreme Court's order, the application filed on 30.09.2021 was within the extended limitation period. Consequently, the NCLAT dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Adjudicating Authority's order holding the application as timely.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.