<?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 (7) TMI 719 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774651</link>
    <description>An application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was challenged as time-barred on the basis of the alleged default date, but the limitation objection failed because acknowledgment of debt extended time under the Limitation Act. The Court treated the uncontroverted plea in the rejoinder as supporting acknowledgment and held that the appellant&#039;s default-date argument did not displace the finding of extension under the acknowledgment rule. The appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Jul 2025 08:40:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=835563" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 719 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774651</link>
      <description>An application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was challenged as time-barred on the basis of the alleged default date, but the limitation objection failed because acknowledgment of debt extended time under the Limitation Act. The Court treated the uncontroverted plea in the rejoinder as supporting acknowledgment and held that the appellant&#039;s default-date argument did not displace the finding of extension under the acknowledgment rule. The appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774651</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>