<?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>2019 (4) TMI 1012 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378568</link>
    <description>An application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was found to be within limitation because the corporate debtor had made subsequent acknowledgements of liability in its accounts and annual report. The Tribunal treated those entries as acknowledgements under section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, so a fresh period of limitation ran from the date of acknowledgement made before expiry of the original period. It also held that the debtor had not disproved the debt reflected in its books, and the proposed one-time settlement did not negate subsisting liability. The debt and default were therefore established, and the petition was admitted for commencement of corporate insolvency resolution process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2019 08:23:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=567375" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 1012 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378568</link>
      <description>An application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was found to be within limitation because the corporate debtor had made subsequent acknowledgements of liability in its accounts and annual report. The Tribunal treated those entries as acknowledgements under section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, so a fresh period of limitation ran from the date of acknowledgement made before expiry of the original period. It also held that the debtor had not disproved the debt reflected in its books, and the proposed one-time settlement did not negate subsisting liability. The debt and default were therefore established, and the petition was admitted for commencement of corporate insolvency resolution process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378568</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>