https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397850 Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 provides a 30-day limitation period, extendable by 15 days on sufficient cause, and time spent pursuing a writ petition after receipt of the order was treated as sufficient cause, so the limitation objection failed. The promoter's settlement proposal was rejected because it lacked a clear source of funds, had uncertainty in payment terms, and suffered procedural non-compliance; that rejection was upheld because the Committee of Creditors' commercial wisdom on feasibility and viability is not open to appellate substitution except on narrow statutory grounds. No material showed illegality in the approved resolution plan, so no interference was warranted. en-us Thu, 27 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 31 Aug 2020 17:22:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397850 Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 provides a 30-day limitation period, extendable by 15 days on sufficient cause, and time spent pursuing a writ petition after receipt of the order was treated as sufficient cause, so the limitation objection failed. The promoter's settlement proposal was rejected because it lacked a clear source of funds, had uncertainty in payment terms, and suffered procedural non-compliance; that rejection was upheld because the Committee of Creditors' commercial wisdom on feasibility and viability is not open to appellate substitution except on narrow statutory grounds. No material showed illegality in the approved resolution plan, so no interference was warranted. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Thu, 27 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397850