https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393961 A decree-holder was treated as a creditor for purposes of Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, so prior execution of the decree was not a condition precedent to maintainability. The alleged pendency of a review petition did not establish that the decree had lost finality, and rejection on that basis was unsustainable. On limitation, Article 137 of the Limitation Act applied, and the right to apply accrued on default; the application was filed within three years of the relevant enforceable date. The dismissal of the insolvency application was set aside and the matter was directed to proceed to admission under Section 7. en-us Wed, 22 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Mar 2020 12:12:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393961 A decree-holder was treated as a creditor for purposes of Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, so prior execution of the decree was not a condition precedent to maintainability. The alleged pendency of a review petition did not establish that the decree had lost finality, and rejection on that basis was unsustainable. On limitation, Article 137 of the Limitation Act applied, and the right to apply accrued on default; the application was filed within three years of the relevant enforceable date. The dismissal of the insolvency application was set aside and the matter was directed to proceed to admission under Section 7. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 22 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393961