<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2018 (7) TMI 1762 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364454</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the winding up petition as the claim was time-barred, ruling that the C-Form did not constitute an acknowledgment of debt to extend the limitation period. The judgment highlights the significance of complying with limitation periods and the legal criteria for acknowledging debts to uphold the validity of claims in similar matters.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2018 08:33:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=528662" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 1762 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364454</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the winding up petition as the claim was time-barred, ruling that the C-Form did not constitute an acknowledgment of debt to extend the limitation period. The judgment highlights the significance of complying with limitation periods and the legal criteria for acknowledging debts to uphold the validity of claims in similar matters.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364454</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>