https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443761 The Adjudicating Authority rejected an application for extension of time in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), stating that only the Appellate Tribunal had the authority to grant such an extension. Despite a previous extension by the Appellate Tribunal and a subsequent withdrawal of an appeal to the Supreme Court, the Resolution Professional was denied the extension. The Supreme Court clarified that the Resolution Professional, acting on the Committee of Creditors' instructions, was authorized to seek an extension. Consequently, both appeals were allowed, overturning the Adjudicating Authority's decision and granting a 60-day extension for voting on pending Resolution Plans. en-us Mon, 25 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Sep 2023 19:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443761 The Adjudicating Authority rejected an application for extension of time in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), stating that only the Appellate Tribunal had the authority to grant such an extension. Despite a previous extension by the Appellate Tribunal and a subsequent withdrawal of an appeal to the Supreme Court, the Resolution Professional was denied the extension. The Supreme Court clarified that the Resolution Professional, acting on the Committee of Creditors' instructions, was authorized to seek an extension. Consequently, both appeals were allowed, overturning the Adjudicating Authority's decision and granting a 60-day extension for voting on pending Resolution Plans. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Mon, 25 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443761