<?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 (9) TMI 1000 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778511</link>
    <description>SC held that a litigant must be given one opportunity to prefer an appeal against proceedings under s.9 IBC. The NCLAT order dismissing the appeal for a 176-day delay in refiling was set aside, the delay condoned and the appeal restored to its original number for further adjudication. Two earlier cost orders by the NCLT and NCLAT are maintained, and an additional cost of Rs.5 lakh is imposed. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2025 08:30:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=851297" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (9) TMI 1000 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778511</link>
      <description>SC held that a litigant must be given one opportunity to prefer an appeal against proceedings under s.9 IBC. The NCLAT order dismissing the appeal for a 176-day delay in refiling was set aside, the delay condoned and the appeal restored to its original number for further adjudication. Two earlier cost orders by the NCLT and NCLAT are maintained, and an additional cost of Rs.5 lakh is imposed. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778511</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>