https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784299 The dominant issue was whether an appeal under s. 42 of the IBC could be rejected as time-barred. NCLAT held the refusal to condone delay was legally unsustainable because a separate application for condonation was not mandatory, the Adjudicating Authority could exercise suo motu power by applying s. 5 of the Limitation Act, and the limitation period overlapped with the COVID-19 period for which the SC had directed extension of limitation. Consequently, the delay was condoned and the matter was remitted to the Adjudicating Authority to hear and decide the s. 42 appeal on merits; the appeal was allowed by remand. en-us Fri, 31 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Jan 2026 07:51:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784299 The dominant issue was whether an appeal under s. 42 of the IBC could be rejected as time-barred. NCLAT held the refusal to condone delay was legally unsustainable because a separate application for condonation was not mandatory, the Adjudicating Authority could exercise suo motu power by applying s. 5 of the Limitation Act, and the limitation period overlapped with the COVID-19 period for which the SC had directed extension of limitation. Consequently, the delay was condoned and the matter was remitted to the Adjudicating Authority to hear and decide the s. 42 appeal on merits; the appeal was allowed by remand. Case-Laws IBC Fri, 31 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784299