https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274359 The Appellate Tribunal found no delay in preferring the appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, despite initial rejection by the Registry. The appeal against the rejection of the application under Section 9 was examined, emphasizing the importance of the Doctrine of Limitation and Prescription. The Tribunal clarified that the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply for initiating the 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' but should be considered for evaluating delays in filing applications. Article 137 of the Limitation Act was interpreted to allow applications under Sections 7, 9, or 10 beyond three years from the enforcement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter remitted back for reconsideration. en-us Wed, 15 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Aug 2018 21:49:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274359 The Appellate Tribunal found no delay in preferring the appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, despite initial rejection by the Registry. The appeal against the rejection of the application under Section 9 was examined, emphasizing the importance of the Doctrine of Limitation and Prescription. The Tribunal clarified that the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply for initiating the 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' but should be considered for evaluating delays in filing applications. Article 137 of the Limitation Act was interpreted to allow applications under Sections 7, 9, or 10 beyond three years from the enforcement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter remitted back for reconsideration. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 15 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274359