<?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>2020 (8) TMI 381 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397438</link>
    <description>A Section 7 IBC application was treated as time-barred where the default dated 31 December 2013 and the account was classified as NPA on 30 March 2014, but the petition was filed only on 31 October 2018. The balance sheet and auditors&#039; report for the year ended 31 March 2016 did not amount to a clear and unqualified acknowledgement of liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, because the accompanying reports referred both to unpaid bank dues and to statements denying default to financial institutions. On that reading, the corporate debtor had not unequivocally admitted the debt, so limitation was not extended.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2020 10:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=619980" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (8) TMI 381 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397438</link>
      <description>A Section 7 IBC application was treated as time-barred where the default dated 31 December 2013 and the account was classified as NPA on 30 March 2014, but the petition was filed only on 31 October 2018. The balance sheet and auditors&#039; report for the year ended 31 March 2016 did not amount to a clear and unqualified acknowledgement of liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, because the accompanying reports referred both to unpaid bank dues and to statements denying default to financial institutions. On that reading, the corporate debtor had not unequivocally admitted the debt, so limitation was not extended.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397438</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>