https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798870 Extension of the ninety-day period under Regulation 2B(1) for a compromise or arrangement under Section 230 may be granted where it is commercially beneficial and prevents value destruction. Assignment of debt after an earlier rejection can constitute a material change in circumstances when it creates a new sole financial creditor with an independent commercial mandate, rather than a collateral challenge to the prior decision. A proposed scheme exceeding liquidation value, supported by the financial creditor and directed at revival rather than piecemeal liquidation, supports extension. Commercial wisdom of the financial creditor should not be substituted, making rejection of the extension request unsustainable. en-us Fri, 14 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Sep 2026 08:32:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798870 Extension of the ninety-day period under Regulation 2B(1) for a compromise or arrangement under Section 230 may be granted where it is commercially beneficial and prevents value destruction. Assignment of debt after an earlier rejection can constitute a material change in circumstances when it creates a new sole financial creditor with an independent commercial mandate, rather than a collateral challenge to the prior decision. A proposed scheme exceeding liquidation value, supported by the financial creditor and directed at revival rather than piecemeal liquidation, supports extension. Commercial wisdom of the financial creditor should not be substituted, making rejection of the extension request unsustainable. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 14 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798870