<?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 (9) TMI 1144 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386376</link>
    <description>For a Section 7 insolvency application, limitation was assessed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, with the right to apply treated as accruing when the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code came into force on 1 December 2016; the filing was therefore not time-barred. A mortgage-backed bank claim was examined under Articles 61 and 62 of the Limitation Act, and, because enforcement under SARFAESI remained within the twelve-year period, the debt was not stale and liability could not be denied on limitation grounds. Deployment of security guards and concurrent auditors did not amount to takeover of actual management absent a specific order under SARFAESI.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2019 16:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=588914" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (9) TMI 1144 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386376</link>
      <description>For a Section 7 insolvency application, limitation was assessed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, with the right to apply treated as accruing when the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code came into force on 1 December 2016; the filing was therefore not time-barred. A mortgage-backed bank claim was examined under Articles 61 and 62 of the Limitation Act, and, because enforcement under SARFAESI remained within the twelve-year period, the debt was not stale and liability could not be denied on limitation grounds. Deployment of security guards and concurrent auditors did not amount to takeover of actual management absent a specific order under SARFAESI.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386376</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>