https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293889 The article explains that limitation for a section 9 insolvency application was not extended by section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 because the suspension under that provision was treated as confined to the remedies covered there and not automatically applicable to an insolvency application. On the facts discussed, the claim was held time-barred, and the authority also treated the creditor's participation in rehabilitation and parallel civil recovery proceedings as showing a recovery-driven approach rather than genuine insolvency resolution. The application was therefore found not maintainable on an independent ground, and the connected interlocutory applications became infructuous. en-us Tue, 07 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 07 Mar 2021 10:23:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293889 The article explains that limitation for a section 9 insolvency application was not extended by section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 because the suspension under that provision was treated as confined to the remedies covered there and not automatically applicable to an insolvency application. On the facts discussed, the claim was held time-barred, and the authority also treated the creditor's participation in rehabilitation and parallel civil recovery proceedings as showing a recovery-driven approach rather than genuine insolvency resolution. The application was therefore found not maintainable on an independent ground, and the connected interlocutory applications became infructuous. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Tue, 07 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293889