https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784644 The dominant issue was whether the CLB, while exercising jurisdiction under s.58(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 between 12.09.2013 and 01.06.2016, had power to condone delay by applying s.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, including by giving retrospective operation to s.433 of the 2013 Act. The SC held that, in that interregnum, no provision authorised the CLB to apply the Limitation Act; s.433 was consciously brought into force only with the constitution of NCLT/NCLAT and could not be retrospectively extended to the CLB. Neither the CLB's limited "court" status nor its regulations implied a power to enlarge statutory limitation. Consequently, condonation of 249 days was without jurisdiction; the HC's affirmance was set aside and the appeal was allowed. en-us Wed, 07 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Jan 2026 08:29:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784644 The dominant issue was whether the CLB, while exercising jurisdiction under s.58(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 between 12.09.2013 and 01.06.2016, had power to condone delay by applying s.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, including by giving retrospective operation to s.433 of the 2013 Act. The SC held that, in that interregnum, no provision authorised the CLB to apply the Limitation Act; s.433 was consciously brought into force only with the constitution of NCLT/NCLAT and could not be retrospectively extended to the CLB. Neither the CLB's limited "court" status nor its regulations implied a power to enlarge statutory limitation. Consequently, condonation of 249 days was without jurisdiction; the HC's affirmance was set aside and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 07 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784644