<?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 873 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407994</link>
    <description>A Section 7 IBC application may remain within limitation where the record contains valid acknowledgments and part-payments extending time under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, read with Sections 18 and 19. A corporate debtor&#039;s reply to a SARFAESI notice, a later letter referring to an OTS proposal, credited part-payments, and signed balance sheets were treated as acknowledgments of subsisting liability. Technical objections that some documents were not filed earlier were not accepted where their authenticity and transmission were undisputed. The application was therefore treated as timely and the admission order was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 May 2021 08:39:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=645318" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (5) TMI 873 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407994</link>
      <description>A Section 7 IBC application may remain within limitation where the record contains valid acknowledgments and part-payments extending time under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, read with Sections 18 and 19. A corporate debtor&#039;s reply to a SARFAESI notice, a later letter referring to an OTS proposal, credited part-payments, and signed balance sheets were treated as acknowledgments of subsisting liability. Technical objections that some documents were not filed earlier were not accepted where their authenticity and transmission were undisputed. The application was therefore treated as timely and the admission order was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407994</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>