https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789632 Proceedings under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code were not barred by limitation because the communications dated 29.01.2016 and 30.11.2018 were only intimation letters referring to default and a possible recall, not a definitive recall of the loan or a notice for initiating Section 95 action. They were also not treated as notice under Section 95(4)(b). The letter dated 03.08.2020 expressly invoked the personal guarantee and demanded payment, and was taken as the operative point for computing limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. The limitation objection was rejected and the proceedings were held within time. en-us Thu, 09 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Apr 2026 08:53:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789632 Proceedings under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code were not barred by limitation because the communications dated 29.01.2016 and 30.11.2018 were only intimation letters referring to default and a possible recall, not a definitive recall of the loan or a notice for initiating Section 95 action. They were also not treated as notice under Section 95(4)(b). The letter dated 03.08.2020 expressly invoked the personal guarantee and demanded payment, and was taken as the operative point for computing limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. The limitation objection was rejected and the proceedings were held within time. Case-Laws IBC Thu, 09 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789632