Driven by excellence, focused on strategies for the longer term.

This is the crux of who we are. It is an articulation of precision in purpose, from the Firm’s beginnings to where we are today. Our collective eye is unerringly trained on tomorrow.

Deep sectoral expertise across services and industries.

Our insistence on strategic advisory exacts an in-depth understanding of and involvement with our clients’ businesses and industries. We engage not just individual businesses, but also contribute to the country’s legal and regulatory frameworks.

Personal commitment supported by experience and grit.

We commit early. We pull together internally for greater support. Every effort is sincere, every individual deeply dedicated to their task, their role, to the Firm.

Our undertakings for long-term impact are an organic extension of our purpose.

They are to employ our deep knowledge of the law beyond the business, the transaction, the deal. To use the opportunities and skills we possess, to reflect on the culture we’re creating. Individually and collectively, these are our efforts to help shape the thinking of our future generations, and arm them with strategies for true, sustainable growth.

Knowledge-sharing is intrinsic to equity and inclusivity.

This is a repository of thought leadership, deep insights and strong viewpoints, legal and other news and events and how they impact the industry and our clients.

Relevance is critical to growth. It necessitates a firm that is dynamic and responsive.

Amplifying intrinsic talent, sharpening skills, expanding knowledge, is vital to leading. It defines every aspect of how our firm functions and transacts. This is how we create new benchmarks and set industry standards.

  • Connect
Oct 01, 2017

Limitation Act does not apply to Proceedings under the IBC

By its order dated August 11, 2017,[1] NCLAT held that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 (‘Limitation Act’) do not apply to the insolvency and bankruptcy process under the IBC. It stressed on the fact that the IBC was not enacted for the purpose of recovery of money claims, but rather for the initiation of CIRP. Accordingly, NCLAT allowed a debt that was time barred under the Limitation Act to form the basis of an application for the initiation of CIRP.

On August 23, 2017, the Supreme Court (‘SC’) dismissed an appeal from the order of NCLAT and declined to interfere with it. However, it noted that the question of law, viz whether the Limitation Act applies to IBC proceedings, has been kept open.

[1]     Neelkanth Township and Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Urban Infrastructure Trustees Limited, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 44 of 2017.

TAGS

SHARE

Subscribe

DISCLAIMER

These are the views and opinions of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Firm. This article is intended for general information only and does not constitute legal or other advice and you acknowledge that there is no relationship (implied, legal or fiduciary) between you and the author/AZB. AZB does not claim that the article's content or information is accurate, correct or complete, and disclaims all liability for any loss or damage caused through error or omission.

RELATED READING

Inter Alia

Irregular Practices in Grant of Loans Against Pledge of Gold Ornaments and Jewellery

Oct 30, 2024 | Banking & Finance
Inter Alia

Bombay High Court Safeguards Celebrity Personality Rights in AI Era: Arijit Singh Case

Oct 30, 2024 | Intellectual Property
Inter Alia

Amendments to Disclosure and Compliance Requirements with respect to Listed Non-Convertible Debt Securities

Oct 30, 2024 | Regulatory & Securities