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 NCLAT held that a claim filed after the completion of liquidation proceedings under Section 59 of the IBC is barred by the three-year limitation period prescribed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. The liquidator had duly invited claims by public notice, and the last date for submission expired well before the respondent filed any claim or proof of claim. The liquidation process was completed, stakeholder payments disbursed, and the corporate debtor dissolved in accordance with the Code. The respondent's application for intervention raising the claim was filed beyond the three-year limitation period calculated from the date of the invoice or prior correspondence. The Tribunal erred in admitting this belated claim. Consequently, the impugned order allowing the respondent's claim was set aside and the appeal was allowed, confirming that claims post-liquidation completion and beyond the limitation period are not maintainable.
The NCLAT held that a claim filed after the completion of liquidation proceedings under Section 59 of the IBC is barred by the three-year limitation period prescribed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. The liquidator had duly invited claims by public notice, and the last date for submission expired well before the respondent filed any claim or proof of claim. The liquidation process was completed, stakeholder payments disbursed, and the corporate debtor dissolved in accordance with the Code. The respondent's application for intervention raising the claim was filed beyond the three-year limitation period calculated from the date of the invoice or prior correspondence. The Tribunal erred in admitting this belated claim. Consequently, the impugned order allowing the respondent's claim was set aside and the appeal was allowed, confirming that claims post-liquidation completion and beyond the limitation period are not maintainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
