https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287855 An email sent before expiry of limitation was treated as a valid acknowledgment of debt under section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, even though it was not addressed to the creditor and did not state the liability with technical precision. The attached statement of account, the surrounding context, and the absence of evidence that the sender lacked authority supported attribution to the corporate debtor. The objection based on section 5 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was not accepted in the insolvency context, and the section 9 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was found maintainable because the debt was not time-barred and the section 8 and 9 requirements were met. en-us Tue, 15 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Nov 2024 12:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287855 An email sent before expiry of limitation was treated as a valid acknowledgment of debt under section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, even though it was not addressed to the creditor and did not state the liability with technical precision. The attached statement of account, the surrounding context, and the absence of evidence that the sender lacked authority supported attribution to the corporate debtor. The objection based on section 5 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was not accepted in the insolvency context, and the section 9 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was found maintainable because the debt was not time-barred and the section 8 and 9 requirements were met. Case-Laws IBC Tue, 15 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287855