https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399712 An application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was held to be time-barred because Article 137 of the Limitation Act applied from the date of default, and no acknowledgement under section 18 was shown. A civil money decree passed after expiry of limitation did not revive limitation or amount to acknowledgement of debt, and section 9 cannot be used as a recovery mechanism based only on a decree. Refusal of delivery of the demand notice was not accepted as deemed service, and photocopies of the envelope were insufficient proof of valid delivery under the Code and Rules. The insolvency petition was therefore not fit for admission. en-us Mon, 16 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Oct 2020 12:49:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399712 An application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was held to be time-barred because Article 137 of the Limitation Act applied from the date of default, and no acknowledgement under section 18 was shown. A civil money decree passed after expiry of limitation did not revive limitation or amount to acknowledgement of debt, and section 9 cannot be used as a recovery mechanism based only on a decree. Refusal of delivery of the demand notice was not accepted as deemed service, and photocopies of the envelope were insufficient proof of valid delivery under the Code and Rules. The insolvency petition was therefore not fit for admission. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Mon, 16 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399712