Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.42 seconds)Section 18 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 19 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
Dena Bank (Now Bank Of Baroda) vs C. Shivakumar Reddy on 4 August, 2021
In
Dena Bank (supra), this Court held that in relation to proceedings
under the IBC, Section 18 of the Limitation Act cannot be construed
with pedantic rigidity.
Vidyasagar Prasad vs Uco Bank & Anr on 4 October, 2021
20. Distinguishing the judgment in Vidyasagar Prasad v. UCO
Bank and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2993 cited by the appellant,
learned Senior Counsel contended that the said judgment was passed
in the facts of that case and does not lay down any law of general
application.
Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave vs Asset Reconstruction Company (India) ... on 18 September, 2019
22. It is now well settled in view of Section 238A of the IBC that
the Limitation Act, 1963 shall, as far as may be, apply to the
proceedings under the Code. It is also well settled that Article 137 of
the first schedule to the Limitation Act providing a period of three
years from the date when the right to apply accrues will govern the
situation. [Dena Bank (Now Bank of Baroda) v. C. Shivakumar
Reddy and Anr., (2021) 10 SCC 330 following Gaurav
15
Hargovindbhai Dave v. Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd. and
Anr., (2019) 10 SCC 572, B.K. Educational Services (P) Ltd. v.
Khan Bahadur Shapoor Fredoom Mazda vs Durga Prosad Chamaria And Others on 1 March, 1961
In OPG Power Generation Private Ltd. v. Enexio Power
Cooling Solutions (India) Private Ltd. And Anr., (2025) 2 SCC 417,
this Court speaking through one of us (Manoj Misra J.,) while
reiterating the holding in Khan Bahadur Shapoor (supra)
summarised the essence of Section 18 of the 1963 Act as under: -
Asset Reconstruction Company (India) ... vs Bishal Jaiswal on 15 April, 2021
33. It was not disputed before us that entries in Balance Sheets
could constitute a valid acknowledgement and in fact it could not
have been disputed, in view of the categoric pronouncement of this
Court in Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd. v. Bishal Jaiswal and
Another, (2021) 6 SCC 366. The only dispute was whether the entry
in F.Y. 2019-20 did or did not constitute a valid acknowledgement.
Among the grounds canvassed was the aspect that the name of the
appellant was not mentioned in the Balance Sheet of F.Y. 2019-20.