<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2018 (2) TMI 885 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355464</link>
    <description>The Tribunal granted a 60-day extension, totaling 270 days, for the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) beyond the initial 180 days. Despite objections from the Operational Creditor regarding lack of justification and minimal activity during the CIRP period, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing the Resolution Professional (RP) with adequate time to explore business revival possibilities. The Tribunal interpreted Section 12 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, holding that the proviso to Section 12(3) does not restrict extensions to once after the initial 180 days. It dismissed the Operational Creditor&#039;s objections and approved the requested extension to facilitate an effective resolution process for the Corporate Debtor.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Feb 2018 09:49:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=508951" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 885 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355464</link>
      <description>The Tribunal granted a 60-day extension, totaling 270 days, for the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) beyond the initial 180 days. Despite objections from the Operational Creditor regarding lack of justification and minimal activity during the CIRP period, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing the Resolution Professional (RP) with adequate time to explore business revival possibilities. The Tribunal interpreted Section 12 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, holding that the proviso to Section 12(3) does not restrict extensions to once after the initial 180 days. It dismissed the Operational Creditor&#039;s objections and approved the requested extension to facilitate an effective resolution process for the Corporate Debtor.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355464</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>