https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420708 Procedural timelines for avoidance applications under Regulation 35A were held to be directory, so delay beyond the 135th day did not by itself justify rejection. The period in Section 46 applies only to undervalued transactions and could not be extended to bar applications under Sections 49 and 66 concerning transactions defrauding creditors or wrongful trading. The pleadings were found sufficiently specific, alleging undervaluation, creditor evasion, related-party payments, and lack of creditor consent. On that basis, threshold rejection was unsustainable, and the insolvency forum retained power to examine the application on merits despite a parallel civil suit. en-us Wed, 06 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Apr 2022 18:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420708 Procedural timelines for avoidance applications under Regulation 35A were held to be directory, so delay beyond the 135th day did not by itself justify rejection. The period in Section 46 applies only to undervalued transactions and could not be extended to bar applications under Sections 49 and 66 concerning transactions defrauding creditors or wrongful trading. The pleadings were found sufficiently specific, alleging undervaluation, creditor evasion, related-party payments, and lack of creditor consent. On that basis, threshold rejection was unsustainable, and the insolvency forum retained power to examine the application on merits despite a parallel civil suit. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 06 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420708