https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397666 A Section 7 insolvency application was treated as within limitation because the debtor's written reply, read with later One Time Settlement correspondence, amounted to acknowledgment of a subsisting liability before expiry of the limitation period. The reply did not dispute the debt, referred to settlement of dues, and was signed by the debtor's director. The subsequent OTS proposal, creditor's acceptance, request for extension of time, and extension of the settlement period were taken together as evidence of a continuing debtor-creditor relationship. On that basis, limitation was extended under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the challenge to admission of CIRP failed. en-us Wed, 24 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Mar 2021 14:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397666 A Section 7 insolvency application was treated as within limitation because the debtor's written reply, read with later One Time Settlement correspondence, amounted to acknowledgment of a subsisting liability before expiry of the limitation period. The reply did not dispute the debt, referred to settlement of dues, and was signed by the debtor's director. The subsequent OTS proposal, creditor's acceptance, request for extension of time, and extension of the settlement period were taken together as evidence of a continuing debtor-creditor relationship. On that basis, limitation was extended under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the challenge to admission of CIRP failed. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 24 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397666