<?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>2025 (1) TMI 266 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764204</link>
    <description>An application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was held not barred by limitation because Article 137 applied, limitation ran from accrual of the right to apply, and the last payment on 26.08.2019, together with the COVID-related exclusion period, kept the filing within time. Section 19 of the Limitation Act was also satisfied because the debtor&#039;s written reply admitted the last payment towards the price of goods, which amounted to acknowledgment of payment within the prescribed period and gave rise to a fresh period of limitation. The limitation objection therefore failed and the rejection of the preliminary objection was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Jan 2025 12:30:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=786608" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 266 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764204</link>
      <description>An application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was held not barred by limitation because Article 137 applied, limitation ran from accrual of the right to apply, and the last payment on 26.08.2019, together with the COVID-related exclusion period, kept the filing within time. Section 19 of the Limitation Act was also satisfied because the debtor&#039;s written reply admitted the last payment towards the price of goods, which amounted to acknowledgment of payment within the prescribed period and gave rise to a fresh period of limitation. The limitation objection therefore failed and the rejection of the preliminary objection was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764204</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>