<?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>2022 (11) TMI 1153 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430729</link>
    <description>Limitation under Section 3 of the Limitation Act must be examined by the Adjudicating Authority even without an objection, and a Section 7 insolvency application is governed by Article 137. The record indicated default from September 2012, while the demand notices were issued in 2016 and the application was filed on 31.12.2019, making limitation a live issue on the face of the record. Any plea based on acknowledgment under Section 18 or exclusion of time under Sections 5 and 14 required factual scrutiny before admission. The admission order was therefore unsustainable, and the matter had to be reconsidered afresh with an opportunity for the appellant to file a reply.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2022 22:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=696926" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (11) TMI 1153 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430729</link>
      <description>Limitation under Section 3 of the Limitation Act must be examined by the Adjudicating Authority even without an objection, and a Section 7 insolvency application is governed by Article 137. The record indicated default from September 2012, while the demand notices were issued in 2016 and the application was filed on 31.12.2019, making limitation a live issue on the face of the record. Any plea based on acknowledgment under Section 18 or exclusion of time under Sections 5 and 14 required factual scrutiny before admission. The admission order was therefore unsustainable, and the matter had to be reconsidered afresh with an opportunity for the appellant to file a reply.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430729</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>