https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445675 Exclusion of time under section 14(2) of the Limitation Act was unavailable because the earlier winding up proceedings were initiated by a third party, not by the appellant, and did not involve prosecution of the same relief with due diligence and good faith against the same party. A one-time settlement request was treated as potentially relevant to limitation under section 25(3) of the Contract Act only if it amounted to a distinct written promise signed by the debtor or authorised agent, so that issue required fresh examination by the adjudicating authority. The limitation finding under section 14(2) was left undisturbed, but the matter was remitted on the settlement request issue. en-us Fri, 10 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Nov 2023 10:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445675 Exclusion of time under section 14(2) of the Limitation Act was unavailable because the earlier winding up proceedings were initiated by a third party, not by the appellant, and did not involve prosecution of the same relief with due diligence and good faith against the same party. A one-time settlement request was treated as potentially relevant to limitation under section 25(3) of the Contract Act only if it amounted to a distinct written promise signed by the debtor or authorised agent, so that issue required fresh examination by the adjudicating authority. The limitation finding under section 14(2) was left undisturbed, but the matter was remitted on the settlement request issue. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Fri, 10 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445675