<?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 (11) TMI 246 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369903</link>
    <description>A written balance confirmation or statement of accounts issued by the debtor can amount to an acknowledgment of liability and extend limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In this winding-up context, the court treated the petitioner&#039;s inter-corporate deposit documents, repayments, and account confirmation as evidence of a subsisting debt, and drew an adverse inference from the respondent&#039;s failure to produce its own books to rebut them. The defence was found not bona fide, the debt remained enforceable, and the limitation objection failed. The winding-up petition was therefore admitted, with a provisional liquidator appointed and limited abeyance granted to allow payment of the admitted amount.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2018 11:27:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=540782" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (11) TMI 246 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369903</link>
      <description>A written balance confirmation or statement of accounts issued by the debtor can amount to an acknowledgment of liability and extend limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In this winding-up context, the court treated the petitioner&#039;s inter-corporate deposit documents, repayments, and account confirmation as evidence of a subsisting debt, and drew an adverse inference from the respondent&#039;s failure to produce its own books to rebut them. The defence was found not bona fide, the debt remained enforceable, and the limitation objection failed. The winding-up petition was therefore admitted, with a provisional liquidator appointed and limited abeyance granted to allow payment of the admitted amount.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369903</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>