https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399517 An application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was not maintainable because the underlying claim was time-barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963; completion of work in 2010 and the much later 2019 filing placed the claim beyond limitation, and a belated acknowledgment could not revive it under Section 18. The application was also barred because correspondence on payment adjustment, liquidated damages, and contractual performance showed a pre-existing dispute before the demand notice, attracting the statutory bar on admission. On both grounds, the insolvency petition could not be admitted. en-us Fri, 05 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Oct 2020 12:38:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399517 An application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was not maintainable because the underlying claim was time-barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963; completion of work in 2010 and the much later 2019 filing placed the claim beyond limitation, and a belated acknowledgment could not revive it under Section 18. The application was also barred because correspondence on payment adjustment, liquidated damages, and contractual performance showed a pre-existing dispute before the demand notice, attracting the statutory bar on admission. On both grounds, the insolvency petition could not be admitted. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Fri, 05 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399517