https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755097 Section 9 insolvency applications are subject to the three-year limitation period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, and a claim already time-barred before the demand notice cannot be revived by prior winding-up proceedings that were not decided on the merits. Where the earlier winding-up petition was disposed of only because prior Central Government consent was required under the Tea Act framework, and no effective step was taken to obtain that consent, those proceedings did not suspend or save limitation. A later Supreme Court decision in related tea-garden litigation also did not extend time for the present parties. The insolvency claim remained barred by limitation. en-us Tue, 02 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Jul 2024 18:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755097 Section 9 insolvency applications are subject to the three-year limitation period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, and a claim already time-barred before the demand notice cannot be revived by prior winding-up proceedings that were not decided on the merits. Where the earlier winding-up petition was disposed of only because prior Central Government consent was required under the Tea Act framework, and no effective step was taken to obtain that consent, those proceedings did not suspend or save limitation. A later Supreme Court decision in related tea-garden litigation also did not extend time for the present parties. The insolvency claim remained barred by limitation. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Tue, 02 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755097