<?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 (9) TMI 1219 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298916</link>
    <description>A written acknowledgment of financial liability made before expiry of the limitation period extended the time to file a Section 7 insolvency application, because Section 18 of the Limitation Act gave rise to a fresh period from the date of acknowledgment. The objection that the application was time-barred failed, and the reliance on contrary precedents was rejected on facts because they did not involve a proved acknowledgment within limitation. The application was also held maintainable despite an earlier claim in the CIRP of the corporate debtor&#039;s parent company, since that claim had been withdrawn and no parallel claim survived. The application was admitted and CIRP was directed to commence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Nov 2021 08:45:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=662139" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (9) TMI 1219 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298916</link>
      <description>A written acknowledgment of financial liability made before expiry of the limitation period extended the time to file a Section 7 insolvency application, because Section 18 of the Limitation Act gave rise to a fresh period from the date of acknowledgment. The objection that the application was time-barred failed, and the reliance on contrary precedents was rejected on facts because they did not involve a proved acknowledgment within limitation. The application was also held maintainable despite an earlier claim in the CIRP of the corporate debtor&#039;s parent company, since that claim had been withdrawn and no parallel claim survived. The application was admitted and CIRP was directed to commence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298916</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>