<?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 (4) TMI 1819 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290214</link>
    <description>The Tribunal granted the Resolution Professional&#039;s application, ruling that the 55-day interim period spent in litigation should be excluded from the 90-day timeline set in the previous order. The decision underscored the RP&#039;s compliance with statutory provisions, the significance of COC resolutions for extensions, and the relevance of judicial precedents in interpreting and applying the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2020 10:43:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=622226" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 1819 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290214</link>
      <description>The Tribunal granted the Resolution Professional&#039;s application, ruling that the 55-day interim period spent in litigation should be excluded from the 90-day timeline set in the previous order. The decision underscored the RP&#039;s compliance with statutory provisions, the significance of COC resolutions for extensions, and the relevance of judicial precedents in interpreting and applying the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290214</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>