https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95869 The dominant issue was whether the CLB had jurisdiction to condone a 249-day delay in an appeal under s.58(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, including whether s.433 (enabling application of the Limitation Act, 1963) could apply retrospectively to CLB proceedings. The Court held that, during the interregnum before 01.06.2016, the statute did not empower the CLB to apply s.5 of the Limitation Act, and its limited "court-like" status and procedural regulations could not be expanded into a power to extend statutory limitation. Section 58(3) was construed as mandatory; the High Court's affirmance was set aside and the appeal allowed. - SC en-us Fri, 09 Jan 2026 11:43:33 +0530 Fri, 09 Jan 2026 11:43:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95869 The dominant issue was whether the CLB had jurisdiction to condone a 249-day delay in an appeal under s.58(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, including whether s.433 (enabling application of the Limitation Act, 1963) could apply retrospectively to CLB proceedings. The Court held that, during the interregnum before 01.06.2016, the statute did not empower the CLB to apply s.5 of the Limitation Act, and its limited "court-like" status and procedural regulations could not be expanded into a power to extend statutory limitation. Section 58(3) was construed as mandatory; the High Court's affirmance was set aside and the appeal allowed. - SC Highlights Companies Law Fri, 09 Jan 2026 11:43:33 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95869