https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420024 An operational creditor's Section 9 IBC application was held time-barred because the debt fell due on 30.12.2016 and the petition was filed after more than three years. Emails relied on to save limitation did not amount to acknowledgment in writing under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, as the 26.03.2017 message only said the matter would be looked into on priority and a resolution was hoped for, and the 27.04.2017 email also did not establish acknowledgment by the corporate debtor. The explanation to Section 18 was found inapplicable, so the plea for extension of limitation failed. en-us Wed, 23 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Mar 2022 08:35:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420024 An operational creditor's Section 9 IBC application was held time-barred because the debt fell due on 30.12.2016 and the petition was filed after more than three years. Emails relied on to save limitation did not amount to acknowledgment in writing under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, as the 26.03.2017 message only said the matter would be looked into on priority and a resolution was hoped for, and the 27.04.2017 email also did not establish acknowledgment by the corporate debtor. The explanation to Section 18 was found inapplicable, so the plea for extension of limitation failed. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 23 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420024