https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92826 The NCLAT allowed the appeals and set aside the NCLT orders, holding the two Section 95 petitions by the appellant/financial creditor to initiate PIRP against anonymized guarantors were not time-barred. The Tribunal clarified that the date of default stated in the petition indicates a fact of cause of action but need not be the terminus a quo for limitation, which is fact-specific. It held 20.11.2018 as the relevant terminus a quo, excluded the COVID suspension period (15.03.2020-28.02.2022) for computation, and concluded limitation extended into 2024. Consequently the petitions filed in November and December 2022 fell within the extended limitation period. en-us Thu, 25 Sep 2025 08:37:32 +0530 Thu, 25 Sep 2025 08:37:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92826 The NCLAT allowed the appeals and set aside the NCLT orders, holding the two Section 95 petitions by the appellant/financial creditor to initiate PIRP against anonymized guarantors were not time-barred. The Tribunal clarified that the date of default stated in the petition indicates a fact of cause of action but need not be the terminus a quo for limitation, which is fact-specific. It held 20.11.2018 as the relevant terminus a quo, excluded the COVID suspension period (15.03.2020-28.02.2022) for computation, and concluded limitation extended into 2024. Consequently the petitions filed in November and December 2022 fell within the extended limitation period. Highlights IBC Thu, 25 Sep 2025 08:37:32 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92826