https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783779 The dominant issue was whether an avoidance application under the IBC (ss. 43, 44, 66, 69 read with Reg. 35A(3)) was barred by limitation due to filing beyond the CIRP timelines and without a formal condonation application. The Tribunal held that limitation stood extended by SC's suo motu Covid-19 orders excluding the relevant period, and the filing was also within the time impliedly granted by the prior directions; further, delay could be condoned even absent a formal application where sufficient material existed on record, consistent with SC precedent. Reliance on an HC decision under CPC/HMA was rejected as inapposite/per incuriam. The appeal was dismissed, and the application was directed to be heard on merits. en-us Tue, 16 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Dec 2025 07:59:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783779 The dominant issue was whether an avoidance application under the IBC (ss. 43, 44, 66, 69 read with Reg. 35A(3)) was barred by limitation due to filing beyond the CIRP timelines and without a formal condonation application. The Tribunal held that limitation stood extended by SC's suo motu Covid-19 orders excluding the relevant period, and the filing was also within the time impliedly granted by the prior directions; further, delay could be condoned even absent a formal application where sufficient material existed on record, consistent with SC precedent. Reliance on an HC decision under CPC/HMA was rejected as inapposite/per incuriam. The appeal was dismissed, and the application was directed to be heard on merits. Case-Laws IBC Tue, 16 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783779