<?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 (8) TMI 176 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775989</link>
    <description>The NCLAT allowed the appeal seeking extension of time to complete and operationalize a scheme of arrangement under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013, despite the liquidator&#039;s failure to comply with prescribed timelines under Regulation 2(B) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. The tribunal held that the regulation is directory, not mandatory, and no absolute legal bar exists against granting extensions if it facilitates the scheme&#039;s enforcement. The approval by the requisite majority of the Stakeholders Consultation Committee supports continuation beyond the prescribed period. The impugned order denying extension based on prior delays and liquidator conduct was unsustainable. The extension was warranted to achieve the scheme&#039;s objectives, shorten litigation, and potentially revive the corporate debtor. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing judicial discretion in granting extensions subject to appropriate conditions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2025 08:28:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=840645" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (8) TMI 176 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775989</link>
      <description>The NCLAT allowed the appeal seeking extension of time to complete and operationalize a scheme of arrangement under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013, despite the liquidator&#039;s failure to comply with prescribed timelines under Regulation 2(B) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. The tribunal held that the regulation is directory, not mandatory, and no absolute legal bar exists against granting extensions if it facilitates the scheme&#039;s enforcement. The approval by the requisite majority of the Stakeholders Consultation Committee supports continuation beyond the prescribed period. The impugned order denying extension based on prior delays and liquidator conduct was unsustainable. The extension was warranted to achieve the scheme&#039;s objectives, shorten litigation, and potentially revive the corporate debtor. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing judicial discretion in granting extensions subject to appropriate conditions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775989</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>