https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789006 Timelines under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code were enforced strictly: an appeal challenging the liquidator's rejection of a claim was filed beyond the prescribed period, the delay explanation was insufficient, and exclusion of the Covid-19 period did not cover the entire default. The Section 42 challenge was therefore barred by limitation and the delay applications were not condonable. The liquidator was also justified in rejecting the creditor's claim as uncrystallised and belated because it was lodged after the public announcement period and did not fit within the liquidation framework under Section 40 and Regulation 30. en-us Fri, 20 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Apr 2026 08:50:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789006 Timelines under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code were enforced strictly: an appeal challenging the liquidator's rejection of a claim was filed beyond the prescribed period, the delay explanation was insufficient, and exclusion of the Covid-19 period did not cover the entire default. The Section 42 challenge was therefore barred by limitation and the delay applications were not condonable. The liquidator was also justified in rejecting the creditor's claim as uncrystallised and belated because it was lodged after the public announcement period and did not fit within the liquidation framework under Section 40 and Regulation 30. Case-Laws IBC Fri, 20 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789006