https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352130 An application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code should not be rejected as time barred merely because the underlying debt arose earlier, as the right to initiate insolvency proceedings accrued on the Code's commencement and a continuing cause of action may defeat a strict limitation objection. Long unexplained delay may still attract scrutiny for laches, but not automatic rejection on limitation alone. Separately, a transferred winding-up petition can abate where the required information under the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016 is not supplied, although fresh recourse under section 9 remains available after issuing the requisite demand notice. en-us Fri, 10 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Jan 2018 11:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352130 An application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code should not be rejected as time barred merely because the underlying debt arose earlier, as the right to initiate insolvency proceedings accrued on the Code's commencement and a continuing cause of action may defeat a strict limitation objection. Long unexplained delay may still attract scrutiny for laches, but not automatic rejection on limitation alone. Separately, a transferred winding-up petition can abate where the required information under the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016 is not supplied, although fresh recourse under section 9 remains available after issuing the requisite demand notice. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Fri, 10 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352130