<?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>2021 (4) TMI 583 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406467</link>
    <description>A section 7 IBC application is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act and must be filed within three years from default. The tribunal applied the settled rule that a time-barred debt cannot be used to initiate insolvency. It held that acknowledgment under section 18 of the Limitation Act extends limitation only if made before expiry of the prescribed period, and that the assignment agreement, mortgage deed, balance-sheet entry and later acknowledgment relied on here arose after the original default and did not revive the claim. Section 25(3) of the Contract Act also did not assist on these facts. The application was therefore barred by limitation and not admissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Apr 2021 18:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=641860" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (4) TMI 583 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406467</link>
      <description>A section 7 IBC application is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act and must be filed within three years from default. The tribunal applied the settled rule that a time-barred debt cannot be used to initiate insolvency. It held that acknowledgment under section 18 of the Limitation Act extends limitation only if made before expiry of the prescribed period, and that the assignment agreement, mortgage deed, balance-sheet entry and later acknowledgment relied on here arose after the original default and did not revive the claim. Section 25(3) of the Contract Act also did not assist on these facts. The application was therefore barred by limitation and not admissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406467</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>