<?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>2026 (3) TMI 1537 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788782</link>
    <description>Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies only to the prescribed limitation period and does not extend the separate 15-day condonable period under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The article explains that an appeal must be filed within 30 days from pronouncement, with only a further discretionary extension on sufficient cause. It also states that the additional period cannot be enlarged merely because the court was closed, and that the absence of any disclosed application for a certified copy did not preserve limitation. The appeal was therefore treated as time-barred and condonation beyond the statutory limit was refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Mar 2026 08:57:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=893489" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 1537 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788782</link>
      <description>Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies only to the prescribed limitation period and does not extend the separate 15-day condonable period under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The article explains that an appeal must be filed within 30 days from pronouncement, with only a further discretionary extension on sufficient cause. It also states that the additional period cannot be enlarged merely because the court was closed, and that the absence of any disclosed application for a certified copy did not preserve limitation. The appeal was therefore treated as time-barred and condonation beyond the statutory limit was refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788782</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>