https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793926 Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 was discussed in relation to whether a challenge could lie against an NCLT order described as a consent order. The Kerala HC noted the statutory bar in Section 421(2) on appeals from consent orders, but observed that the petitioner may not have consented to the punitive component of the order, including the per-day liability for non-compliance. On that basis, the order was treated as challengeable before the appellate tribunal under Section 421(1). The petitioner was directed to move the appellate tribunal within three weeks, interim protection was continued for five weeks, and any appeal filed within that period was to be treated as within limitation. en-us Wed, 10 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Jun 2026 07:07:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793926 Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 was discussed in relation to whether a challenge could lie against an NCLT order described as a consent order. The Kerala HC noted the statutory bar in Section 421(2) on appeals from consent orders, but observed that the petitioner may not have consented to the punitive component of the order, including the per-day liability for non-compliance. On that basis, the order was treated as challengeable before the appellate tribunal under Section 421(1). The petitioner was directed to move the appellate tribunal within three weeks, interim protection was continued for five weeks, and any appeal filed within that period was to be treated as within limitation. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 10 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793926