https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757448 The NCLAT Principal Bench allowed an appeal challenging rejection of a 60-day extension for Pre-Package Insolvency Resolution Process (PPIRP). The tribunal held that the 120-day completion period under Section 54D is not mandatory and does not result in automatic termination of PPIRP. Relying on the SC decision in Essar Steel where the word "mandatorily" was struck down for CIRP timelines, the NCLAT ruled that the Adjudicating Authority has discretion to extend PPIRP beyond 120 days in appropriate cases. The tribunal found no automatic termination provision exists and the lower court erred in rejecting the extension application. The impugned order was set aside. en-us Tue, 20 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Aug 2024 13:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757448 The NCLAT Principal Bench allowed an appeal challenging rejection of a 60-day extension for Pre-Package Insolvency Resolution Process (PPIRP). The tribunal held that the 120-day completion period under Section 54D is not mandatory and does not result in automatic termination of PPIRP. Relying on the SC decision in Essar Steel where the word "mandatorily" was struck down for CIRP timelines, the NCLAT ruled that the Adjudicating Authority has discretion to extend PPIRP beyond 120 days in appropriate cases. The tribunal found no automatic termination provision exists and the lower court erred in rejecting the extension application. The impugned order was set aside. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Tue, 20 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757448