<?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 (5) TMI 539 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407660</link>
    <description>A section 7 IBC application was held to be within limitation because the corporate debtor&#039;s written admission of the loan and a later signed payment acknowledgment extended limitation under sections 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act, with the petition treated as timely under Article 137. Objections based on alleged lack of authority to file the petition and a separate misappropriation dispute were rejected as not defeating maintainability where financial debt and default were otherwise established. The stamp-duty objection also failed because the principal mortgage deed was duly stamped, and the related loan documents were accepted for the petition. The company petition was admitted and CIRP commenced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 May 2021 08:30:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=644501" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (5) TMI 539 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407660</link>
      <description>A section 7 IBC application was held to be within limitation because the corporate debtor&#039;s written admission of the loan and a later signed payment acknowledgment extended limitation under sections 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act, with the petition treated as timely under Article 137. Objections based on alleged lack of authority to file the petition and a separate misappropriation dispute were rejected as not defeating maintainability where financial debt and default were otherwise established. The stamp-duty objection also failed because the principal mortgage deed was duly stamped, and the related loan documents were accepted for the petition. The company petition was admitted and CIRP commenced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407660</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>