https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396566 An application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was held time-barred because the alleged default arose in 2012 and the petition was filed only in November 2018, beyond the three-year limitation period. The Tribunal found that the e-mail exchanges and the letter of 3 June 2014 did not extend limitation, as they were not shown to be acknowledged by the corporate debtor and there was no reliable evidence of the debt appearing in its books. On pre-existing dispute, the debtor's letter referred to incomplete work and payment linked to commissioning, but no sufficient dispute was established to displace the claim. The petition was rejected as not maintainable. en-us Tue, 04 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Jul 2020 11:01:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396566 An application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was held time-barred because the alleged default arose in 2012 and the petition was filed only in November 2018, beyond the three-year limitation period. The Tribunal found that the e-mail exchanges and the letter of 3 June 2014 did not extend limitation, as they were not shown to be acknowledged by the corporate debtor and there was no reliable evidence of the debt appearing in its books. On pre-existing dispute, the debtor's letter referred to incomplete work and payment linked to commissioning, but no sufficient dispute was established to displace the claim. The petition was rejected as not maintainable. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Tue, 04 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396566