Inventory write-off and fraudulent/wrongful trading allegations in corporate insolvency led to director liability principles applied and appeal dismis...
Condonation of delay in filing GSTR-3B returns and entitlement to Section 62 benefit results in withdrawal of assessments and revocation of attachment...
The text addresses whether the adjudicatory authority may extend the Personal Insolvency Resolution Process (PIRP) beyond procedural timeline lapses while the statutory moratorium remains time-capped. It reasons that procedural timelines in the applicable regulation (including the 120 day filing requirement) are directory, not automatically fatal, and that the authority retains jurisdiction to permit extensions where stakeholders authorise and sufficient reasons exist; however the moratorium itself cannot be extended beyond its statutory outer limit. The conclusion reversed the rejection of extension applications and permitted adjudication of the repayment plan on the extended PIRP timeline.
The text addresses whether the adjudicatory authority may extend the Personal Insolvency Resolution Process (PIRP) beyond procedural timeline lapses while the statutory moratorium remains time-capped. It reasons that procedural timelines in the applicable regulation (including the 120 day filing requirement) are directory, not automatically fatal, and that the authority retains jurisdiction to permit extensions where stakeholders authorise and sufficient reasons exist; however the moratorium itself cannot be extended beyond its statutory outer limit. The conclusion reversed the rejection of extension applications and permitted adjudication of the repayment plan on the extended PIRP timeline.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.