https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430727 The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the application under Section 9 due to defaults falling within the Section 10A prohibition period, suspending CIRP initiation for defaults after March 25, 2020. The appellant's argument that defaults occurred beyond the prohibited period was accepted, allowing for a fresh application for defaults outside the Section 10A timeframe. The Tribunal clarified that no applications could be filed for defaults within the prohibited period but permitted applications for defaults outside that timeframe. The decision emphasized the protective intent of Section 10A during the COVID-19 pandemic. en-us Wed, 02 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Nov 2022 09:00:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430727 The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the application under Section 9 due to defaults falling within the Section 10A prohibition period, suspending CIRP initiation for defaults after March 25, 2020. The appellant's argument that defaults occurred beyond the prohibited period was accepted, allowing for a fresh application for defaults outside the Section 10A timeframe. The Tribunal clarified that no applications could be filed for defaults within the prohibited period but permitted applications for defaults outside that timeframe. The decision emphasized the protective intent of Section 10A during the COVID-19 pandemic. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 02 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430727