<?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 (9) TMI 622 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758378</link>
    <description>Section 7 insolvency applications are governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, with limitation running from the date of default and expiring after three years. The Tribunal rejected reliance on Article 21 and held, on the admitted dates, that the petition was filed within time and was not barred by limitation. It also noted that recall and review are distinct remedies, and that inherent recall power under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules may be exercised only in appropriate exceptional circumstances. On the facts, the recall request was entertained only to examine limitation, and the earlier admission order was left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Sep 2024 20:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=767813" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 622 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758378</link>
      <description>Section 7 insolvency applications are governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, with limitation running from the date of default and expiring after three years. The Tribunal rejected reliance on Article 21 and held, on the admitted dates, that the petition was filed within time and was not barred by limitation. It also noted that recall and review are distinct remedies, and that inherent recall power under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules may be exercised only in appropriate exceptional circumstances. On the facts, the recall request was entertained only to examine limitation, and the earlier admission order was left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758378</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>