https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429742 A Section 9 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code claim based on an alleged MOU debt was treated as time-barred because the right to apply arose when the dues became due in July 2013 and the application was filed only in April 2019, beyond the three-year period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act; the later payments were not accepted as part-payment of the settled debt and did not extend limitation under Section 19. The MOU also could not bind the corporate debtor because execution by an authorised representative was not proved, as the signatory was neither a director nor key managerial personnel and no board resolution was shown. en-us Thu, 03 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Nov 2022 08:51:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429742 A Section 9 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code claim based on an alleged MOU debt was treated as time-barred because the right to apply arose when the dues became due in July 2013 and the application was filed only in April 2019, beyond the three-year period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act; the later payments were not accepted as part-payment of the settled debt and did not extend limitation under Section 19. The MOU also could not bind the corporate debtor because execution by an authorised representative was not proved, as the signatory was neither a director nor key managerial personnel and no board resolution was shown. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Thu, 03 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429742