https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95323 Whether the avoidance application under ss. 43, 44, 66 and 69 read with Reg. 35A(3) was barred by limitation was the dominant issue. The tribunal held it was not time-barred because the computation of limitation stood extended by SC's suo motu COVID-19 directions excluding 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, and the filing was within the implied period permitted by the prior order granting liberty to apply; further, delay could be condoned without a formal application if sufficient material existed on record, rendering reliance on a contrary CPC-based HC decision inapposite. Consequently, the order refusing to dismiss the application as time-barred and directing hearing on merits was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed. - NCLAT en-us Tue, 23 Dec 2025 07:59:05 +0530 Tue, 23 Dec 2025 07:59:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95323 Whether the avoidance application under ss. 43, 44, 66 and 69 read with Reg. 35A(3) was barred by limitation was the dominant issue. The tribunal held it was not time-barred because the computation of limitation stood extended by SC's suo motu COVID-19 directions excluding 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, and the filing was within the implied period permitted by the prior order granting liberty to apply; further, delay could be condoned without a formal application if sufficient material existed on record, rendering reliance on a contrary CPC-based HC decision inapposite. Consequently, the order refusing to dismiss the application as time-barred and directing hearing on merits was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed. - NCLAT Highlights IBC Tue, 23 Dec 2025 07:59:05 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95323