<?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 (12) TMI 1473 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783933</link>
    <description>An 8-day delay in filing the company appeal was condoned because the explanation of counsel&#039;s illness was supported, the delay was short, and it fell within the statutory condonable period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. A belated amendment under Rule 155 of the NCLT Rules was, however, not maintainable, because the Tribunal had to consider statutory limits, exceptional circumstances for late amendment, and whether the change altered the nature of the pending liquidation-fee application or caused procedural prejudice. The impugned order was set aside, the amendment application was dismissed, and the liquidation-fee application was left for independent decision on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=874025" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 1473 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783933</link>
      <description>An 8-day delay in filing the company appeal was condoned because the explanation of counsel&#039;s illness was supported, the delay was short, and it fell within the statutory condonable period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. A belated amendment under Rule 155 of the NCLT Rules was, however, not maintainable, because the Tribunal had to consider statutory limits, exceptional circumstances for late amendment, and whether the change altered the nature of the pending liquidation-fee application or caused procedural prejudice. The impugned order was set aside, the amendment application was dismissed, and the liquidation-fee application was left for independent decision on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783933</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>