<?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>2024 (3) TMI 289 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI - LB</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450508</link>
    <description>An application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, so an operational creditor must file within three years of the debt becoming due. Invoices dated between 2011 and 2016, with due dates long before the 08.09.2020 filing, were held time-barred because no subsequent written acknowledgment extended limitation. The record also did not prove a running account arrangement, so older invoices could not be combined with the last invoice to avoid the limitation bar. Insolvency proceedings were reaffirmed as unavailable as a substitute for debt recovery, and the limitation objection was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Mar 2024 06:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=745977" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (3) TMI 289 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI - LB</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450508</link>
      <description>An application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, so an operational creditor must file within three years of the debt becoming due. Invoices dated between 2011 and 2016, with due dates long before the 08.09.2020 filing, were held time-barred because no subsequent written acknowledgment extended limitation. The record also did not prove a running account arrangement, so older invoices could not be combined with the last invoice to avoid the limitation bar. Insolvency proceedings were reaffirmed as unavailable as a substitute for debt recovery, and the limitation objection was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450508</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>