https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761226 A payment made within the subsisting limitation period can constitute acknowledgment of liability and restart limitation under the Limitation Act; on that basis, the Section 7 application was treated as timely because the corporate debtor's December 2016 payments revived limitation from that date. A second Section 7 petition by the same financial creditor was also held maintainable where it was founded on a distinct debt, separate default and different factual matrix, so Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not bar it. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration of the restored insolvency petition. en-us Tue, 05 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Nov 2024 08:47:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761226 A payment made within the subsisting limitation period can constitute acknowledgment of liability and restart limitation under the Limitation Act; on that basis, the Section 7 application was treated as timely because the corporate debtor's December 2016 payments revived limitation from that date. A second Section 7 petition by the same financial creditor was also held maintainable where it was founded on a distinct debt, separate default and different factual matrix, so Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not bar it. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration of the restored insolvency petition. Case-Laws IBC Tue, 05 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761226