https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419957 The text discusses limitation in a Section 9 insolvency application and whether the claimed operational debt could support initiation of CIRP. One view held that the default date was 25.07.2011, no acknowledgment within limitation was shown, and a later letter could not extend limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, making the application time-barred. The other view treated the communications, emails and letters as evidence of a continuing employer-service relationship and acknowledgment of liability, supporting the claim as operational debt and justifying admission. The text also notes differing views on alleged fraud, forgery and related criminal proceedings. en-us Mon, 21 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Mar 2022 09:21:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419957 The text discusses limitation in a Section 9 insolvency application and whether the claimed operational debt could support initiation of CIRP. One view held that the default date was 25.07.2011, no acknowledgment within limitation was shown, and a later letter could not extend limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, making the application time-barred. The other view treated the communications, emails and letters as evidence of a continuing employer-service relationship and acknowledgment of liability, supporting the claim as operational debt and justifying admission. The text also notes differing views on alleged fraud, forgery and related criminal proceedings. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Mon, 21 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419957