https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264815 A winding-up petition based on a debt under a fresh agreement was held time-barred because the claimant delayed for years after the respondent company's BIFR proceedings ended. The court applied Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the statutory concept of good faith under Section 2(h), finding that the petitioner knew of the BIFR proceedings, had itself participated before the BIFR, and failed to act with due diligence once the company was discharged from sickness. The late Section 434 notice, issued only in May 2010, could not revive a stale claim, and equitable grounds did not excuse the delay. The petition was therefore barred by limitation and dismissed. en-us Wed, 27 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Oct 2015 13:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264815 A winding-up petition based on a debt under a fresh agreement was held time-barred because the claimant delayed for years after the respondent company's BIFR proceedings ended. The court applied Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the statutory concept of good faith under Section 2(h), finding that the petitioner knew of the BIFR proceedings, had itself participated before the BIFR, and failed to act with due diligence once the company was discharged from sickness. The late Section 434 notice, issued only in May 2010, could not revive a stale claim, and equitable grounds did not excuse the delay. The petition was therefore barred by limitation and dismissed. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 27 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264815