https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431944 The court held that subsequent extensions of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) period beyond the initial extension are impermissible under the law, interpreting the relevant provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The court emphasized that the restriction on multiple extensions is mandatory, citing precedents and statutory interpretation principles. Additionally, the court clarified that the non-obstante clause in Section 60(5) of the IBC does not override the limitation on extensions. The extension based on a Committee of Creditors (COC) resolution was deemed invalid as it did not meet the criteria set by the Supreme Court. The court set aside the extension granted by the NCLT and allowed further legal remedies. en-us Thu, 22 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Dec 2022 11:07:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431944 The court held that subsequent extensions of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) period beyond the initial extension are impermissible under the law, interpreting the relevant provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The court emphasized that the restriction on multiple extensions is mandatory, citing precedents and statutory interpretation principles. Additionally, the court clarified that the non-obstante clause in Section 60(5) of the IBC does not override the limitation on extensions. The extension based on a Committee of Creditors (COC) resolution was deemed invalid as it did not meet the criteria set by the Supreme Court. The court set aside the extension granted by the NCLT and allowed further legal remedies. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Thu, 22 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431944