Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
An application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, and time runs from the date of default. The Court held that limitation began when the accounts were classified as NPA on 06.12.2016, not from the later end of SARFAESI proceedings. After excluding the moratorium period under Section 60(6) and the Covid-related exclusion orders, the petition was still filed beyond the remaining limitation period and was time-barred. The Court also held that admission of a claim by the IRP/RP is only an administrative act and does not amount to acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, which requires a conscious admission by the debtor or authorised person before limitation expires.
An application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, and time runs from the date of default. The Court held that limitation began when the accounts were classified as NPA on 06.12.2016, not from the later end of SARFAESI proceedings. After excluding the moratorium period under Section 60(6) and the Covid-related exclusion orders, the petition was still filed beyond the remaining limitation period and was time-barred. The Court also held that admission of a claim by the IRP/RP is only an administrative act and does not amount to acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, which requires a conscious admission by the debtor or authorised person before limitation expires.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.