<?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 (11) TMI 211 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI - LB</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761225</link>
    <description>Limitation for a Section 7 insolvency application is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, with time running from the date of default. Pendency of separate recovery proceedings does not create a continuing cause of action, and limitation cannot be postponed to the date on which the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code came into force. Where delay is not shown to be sufficiently, satisfactorily, and convincingly explained, equitable considerations alone do not justify condonation under Section 5. On that basis, the application remained barred by limitation and the challenge to dismissal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Nov 2024 18:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=776817" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (11) TMI 211 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI - LB</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761225</link>
      <description>Limitation for a Section 7 insolvency application is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, with time running from the date of default. Pendency of separate recovery proceedings does not create a continuing cause of action, and limitation cannot be postponed to the date on which the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code came into force. Where delay is not shown to be sufficiently, satisfactorily, and convincingly explained, equitable considerations alone do not justify condonation under Section 5. On that basis, the application remained barred by limitation and the challenge to dismissal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761225</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>