<?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>CIRP timeline pause due to claim verification and resolution professional disputes; 281 days excluded from insolvency process period.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95717</link>
    <description>The dominant issue was whether 20.08.2024 to 28.05.2025 should be excluded from the CIRP timeline as a period during which the process could not effectively progress due to directions of the Adjudicating Authority. The tribunal held that CoC decision-making was restrained pending claim verification, and even where voting was permitted, implementation required prior leave, materially impeding CIRP progress; further, disputes and changes regarding the resolution professional also disrupted the process. Consequently, the impugned order was modified to grant exclusion of this 281-day period, while affirming the exclusion already granted for the other period; the appeal was disposed of. - NCLAT</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2026 08:04:08 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2026 08:04:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=875922" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>CIRP timeline pause due to claim verification and resolution professional disputes; 281 days excluded from insolvency process period.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95717</link>
      <description>The dominant issue was whether 20.08.2024 to 28.05.2025 should be excluded from the CIRP timeline as a period during which the process could not effectively progress due to directions of the Adjudicating Authority. The tribunal held that CoC decision-making was restrained pending claim verification, and even where voting was permitted, implementation required prior leave, materially impeding CIRP progress; further, disputes and changes regarding the resolution professional also disrupted the process. Consequently, the impugned order was modified to grant exclusion of this 281-day period, while affirming the exclusion already granted for the other period; the appeal was disposed of. - NCLAT</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2026 08:04:08 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95717</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>