https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399610 In a section 9 IBC analysis, the Tribunal treated limitation as saved by section 14 of the Limitation Act because the creditor had bona fide prosecuted earlier winding-up and transferred proceedings, so the fresh filing remained within article 137. It also held that res judicata did not apply since the earlier proceeding had abated and liberty was granted to file afresh without any merits adjudication. Unsupported allegations of a quality dispute were rejected for want of contemporaneous material, and the interest claim at 24% did not defeat maintainability once default was otherwise shown. The petition was found complete, debt and default were established, and CIRP was directed to commence. en-us Mon, 10 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Oct 2020 13:16:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399610 In a section 9 IBC analysis, the Tribunal treated limitation as saved by section 14 of the Limitation Act because the creditor had bona fide prosecuted earlier winding-up and transferred proceedings, so the fresh filing remained within article 137. It also held that res judicata did not apply since the earlier proceeding had abated and liberty was granted to file afresh without any merits adjudication. Unsupported allegations of a quality dispute were rejected for want of contemporaneous material, and the interest claim at 24% did not defeat maintainability once default was otherwise shown. The petition was found complete, debt and default were established, and CIRP was directed to commence. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Mon, 10 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399610