Condonation of refiling delay refused where repeated defects, lack of diligence and vague explanations defeated the appeal against resolution plan app...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
4401 to 4420 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC held that section 458A prescribes a clear, unambiguous four-year limitation (three years plus one) for recovery actions following a winding-up order, commencing from the date of the winding-up order and excluding the period between commencement of winding-up proceedings and the winding-up order. Consequently, the Single Judge's conclusion that limitation commences from filing of the statement of affairs was set aside. Because the winding-up order merged with the appellate order dated 06.03.2020, limitation for continuation of proceedings began from that date. The application filed by the Official Liquidator on 13.09.2020 fell within the statutory period under section 458A. Appeal dismissed.
The HC held that section 458A prescribes a clear, unambiguous four-year limitation (three years plus one) for recovery actions following a winding-up order, commencing from the date of the winding-up order and excluding the period between commencement of winding-up proceedings and the winding-up order. Consequently, the Single Judge's conclusion that limitation commences from filing of the statement of affairs was set aside. Because the winding-up order merged with the appellate order dated 06.03.2020, limitation for continuation of proceedings began from that date. The application filed by the Official Liquidator on 13.09.2020 fell within the statutory period under section 458A. Appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
