https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418420 An application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was found time-barred because the default arose from invoices last dated 24.04.2012, the debtor's acknowledgment dated 01.04.2014 extended limitation only until 01.04.2017, and the later payment dated 28.05.2019 fell outside the three-year period under Article 137 and did not revive limitation under Sections 18 or 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The application was also held not maintainable because service of the statutory demand notice is mandatory under Section 9 read with Rule 5 of the 2016 Rules, and the record contained no proof of delivery to the corporate debtor. The petition was therefore liable to be rejected on both grounds. en-us Tue, 01 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:43:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418420 An application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was found time-barred because the default arose from invoices last dated 24.04.2012, the debtor's acknowledgment dated 01.04.2014 extended limitation only until 01.04.2017, and the later payment dated 28.05.2019 fell outside the three-year period under Article 137 and did not revive limitation under Sections 18 or 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The application was also held not maintainable because service of the statutory demand notice is mandatory under Section 9 read with Rule 5 of the 2016 Rules, and the record contained no proof of delivery to the corporate debtor. The petition was therefore liable to be rejected on both grounds. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Tue, 01 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418420