2023 (5) TMI 343

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... v. Mr. Kumar Sudeep, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Debal Kumar Banerjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Adv. Mr. Suraj Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Nanda Kumar K B, Adv. Ms. Akhila Wali, Adv. Mr. Shiva Swaroop, Adv. Mr. Dharm Singh, Adv. M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AOR ORDER Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 17-03-2021 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ate the proceedings under Section 9 of the IBC before the NCLT. The NCLT considering the starting point of limitation as 12.03.2011 held that the claim is barred by limitation. However, the NCLT did not take into consideration the subsequent invoices at least preceding three years from the date of filing of Section 9 application, which ought to have been considered. Under the circumstances, the NC .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... resent appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order(s) passed by the NCLT and that of the NCLAT dismissing/rejecting application under Section 9 of the IBC on the ground that the claim is barred by limitation are hereby quashed and set aside and now the matter is remitted to the NCLT to consider Section 9 application afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits. All the contentions/def .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X