<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (3) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766629</link>
    <description>The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging NCLT&#039;s jurisdiction to entertain a company petition under Section 10-A of IBC, 2016. The petitioner argued that the default commenced during the moratorium period (on or after 25.03.2020 for six months), prohibiting CIRP initiation. The HC held that while Section 10-A temporarily suspends CIRP initiation for defaults during the moratorium period, it cannot be extended to cases where default continues beyond the moratorium period. Since the default in this case continued after the moratorium period ended, NCLT had jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Mar 2025 08:25:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=802834" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766629</link>
      <description>The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging NCLT&#039;s jurisdiction to entertain a company petition under Section 10-A of IBC, 2016. The petitioner argued that the default commenced during the moratorium period (on or after 25.03.2020 for six months), prohibiting CIRP initiation. The HC held that while Section 10-A temporarily suspends CIRP initiation for defaults during the moratorium period, it cannot be extended to cases where default continues beyond the moratorium period. Since the default in this case continued after the moratorium period ended, NCLT had jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766629</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>