https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790680 The tribunal treated the 208-day period spent in appellate proceedings as excludable for the personal guarantor insolvency resolution process, because the delay arose from pending appeals after reservation of judgment and was beyond the resolution professional's control. It applied the principle that no party should suffer for an act of court and held that the earlier appellate directions required determination of the actual amount payable before further steps in the company petitions. Section 101 was read as governing moratorium, not as barring exclusion of time, while Regulation 19(1) was held inapplicable and sections 100(4) and 104(2) were treated as procedural and not preventive of exclusion. The exclusion was upheld and the challenge failed. en-us Mon, 27 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Apr 2026 08:16:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790680 The tribunal treated the 208-day period spent in appellate proceedings as excludable for the personal guarantor insolvency resolution process, because the delay arose from pending appeals after reservation of judgment and was beyond the resolution professional's control. It applied the principle that no party should suffer for an act of court and held that the earlier appellate directions required determination of the actual amount payable before further steps in the company petitions. Section 101 was read as governing moratorium, not as barring exclusion of time, while Regulation 19(1) was held inapplicable and sections 100(4) and 104(2) were treated as procedural and not preventive of exclusion. The exclusion was upheld and the challenge failed. Case-Laws IBC Mon, 27 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790680