https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395389 Proper board authorisation and a substantially compliant power of attorney were held sufficient, so the filing objection did not defeat the insolvency application. The more significant issue was limitation: the default was treated as having occurred in August 2015, and the section 9 application was filed beyond three years. A credit note dated April 2017 was not an acknowledgment because it did not admit a subsisting liability or show an intention to pay the debt. Without valid acknowledgment, limitation was not extended, and the petition remained barred by time. en-us Thu, 30 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 May 2020 10:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395389 Proper board authorisation and a substantially compliant power of attorney were held sufficient, so the filing objection did not defeat the insolvency application. The more significant issue was limitation: the default was treated as having occurred in August 2015, and the section 9 application was filed beyond three years. A credit note dated April 2017 was not an acknowledgment because it did not admit a subsisting liability or show an intention to pay the debt. Without valid acknowledgment, limitation was not extended, and the petition remained barred by time. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Thu, 30 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395389