Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.65 seconds)

M/S Reliance Asset Reconstruction ... vs M/S Hotel Poonja International Pvt. ... on 21 January, 2021

Reference was further made to the decision of Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited vs. Hotel Poonja International, reported in (2021) 7 SCC 352, in support of the contention that a right to sue accrued when a default occurred and if the default had occurred three years prior to the filing of an application under section 7 of the IBC, the application would be barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. Similarly, the acknowledgement of liability in writing, within the prescribed period of limitation to file a suit and / or application, would lead to computation of limitation afresh, i.e., from the time when the acknowledgement was so signed. In this case, the respondents had not signed any acknowledgement in writing after 2014. The acknowledgement was made in 2020, which was way beyond the period of limitation. Under such circumstances, the application should be dismissed as the claim had become barred by limitation.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 21 - Cited by 4 - I Banerjee - Full Document

Panchanan Dhara & Ors vs Monmatha Nath Maity (Dead) Th. Lrs. & Anr on 12 May, 2006

5. Learned Advocate relied upon the decision of Panchanan Dhara and Others vs. Monmatha Nath Maity (Dead) Through LRS. And Another reported in (2006) 5 SCC 340, in support of the contention that the extension of time for performance of the contract between the parties, could also be gathered from conduct of the parties and attending circumstances. Such extension may not always be explicit, but could be inferred from the way the parties behaved and conducted themselves.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 83 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next