<?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 (10) TMI 961 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL — NEW DELHI BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399987</link>
    <description>A duly signed balance-sheet may constitute an acknowledgment of liability in writing for the purposes of section 18 of the Limitation Act, including in insolvency proceedings, and the statutory preparation of accounts does not by itself exclude that effect. The order surveys Supreme Court and High Court authority supporting that position and notes that limitation may still depend on the pleaded facts and evidence in each case. It also records that the contrary view in V. Padmakumar was not accepted as settled law and was referred for reconsideration by a five-member Bench. The matter therefore remained open for authoritative reconsideration of the limitation question.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2020 17:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=626072" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (10) TMI 961 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL — NEW DELHI BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399987</link>
      <description>A duly signed balance-sheet may constitute an acknowledgment of liability in writing for the purposes of section 18 of the Limitation Act, including in insolvency proceedings, and the statutory preparation of accounts does not by itself exclude that effect. The order surveys Supreme Court and High Court authority supporting that position and notes that limitation may still depend on the pleaded facts and evidence in each case. It also records that the contrary view in V. Padmakumar was not accepted as settled law and was referred for reconsideration by a five-member Bench. The matter therefore remained open for authoritative reconsideration of the limitation question.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399987</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>