Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the three-month period prescribed for filing an application for bankruptcy under Section 121(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is mandatory or directory, and whether delay in filing such application can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 238A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Analysis: The provision fixes a period of three months for filing the bankruptcy application but does not prescribe any consequence for non-compliance or any outer bar. In the absence of an express exclusion, the provisions of the Limitation Act continue to apply under Section 238A. The timeline in Section 121(2) was therefore treated as procedural and directory, not as a rigid jurisdictional bar. The Tribunal held that delay could be condoned upon sufficient cause being shown, and the refusal to do so in the impugned order was unsustainable.
Conclusion: The three-month period under Section 121(2) is directory, delay in filing the bankruptcy application can be condoned, and the dismissal of the application on limitation was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory timeline under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code prescribes an inner limit without an express outer bar or exclusion, it is directory and remains amenable to condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 through Section 238A.