<?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>2020 (12) TMI 887 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402088</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the appointment of a liquidator beyond the limitation period, citing the failure to file an appeal within the statutory period or the extendable period under the law. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to strict limitation periods for appeals and refrained from exercising discretionary powers under Article 227 in this context.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:09:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=631044" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (12) TMI 887 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402088</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the appointment of a liquidator beyond the limitation period, citing the failure to file an appeal within the statutory period or the extendable period under the law. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to strict limitation periods for appeals and refrained from exercising discretionary powers under Article 227 in this context.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402088</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>