https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791904 Appeals filed in the name of a corporate debtor after commencement of CIRP were treated as incompetent where they were lodged beyond the limitation period under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Tribunal stated that such a filing is not a mere curable defect and cannot be regularised later by substituting the suspended director as appellant through amendment. It also noted that the Supreme Court's declaration on the issue is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution, and earlier orders allowing amendments in other matters could not override that binding position. The amendment applications were therefore rejected and the appeals remained not maintainable. en-us Mon, 18 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 May 2026 08:31:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791904 Appeals filed in the name of a corporate debtor after commencement of CIRP were treated as incompetent where they were lodged beyond the limitation period under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Tribunal stated that such a filing is not a mere curable defect and cannot be regularised later by substituting the suspended director as appellant through amendment. It also noted that the Supreme Court's declaration on the issue is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution, and earlier orders allowing amendments in other matters could not override that binding position. The amendment applications were therefore rejected and the appeals remained not maintainable. Case-Laws IBC Mon, 18 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791904