NCLAT determined that the moratorium period of 180 days u/s ...

NCLAT Rules 180-Day Moratorium Under IBC Section 101(1) Is Mandatory, Cannot Be Extended By Any Authority.

January 24, 2025

Case Laws IBC AT

NCLAT determined that the moratorium period of 180 days u/s 101(1) of IBC is mandatory, not directory, and cannot be extended by either the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal emphasized that the statutory language is unambiguous, setting a clear outer limit for moratorium either at 180 days from admission or when the Adjudicating Authority passes an order on the Repayment Plan, whichever occurs earlier. The Tribunal distinguished this from provisions like Section 54D and Section 54N, noting that Section 101(1)'s express limitation precludes judicial discretion to extend the moratorium period. The appeal challenging the non-extension of moratorium beyond 180 days during PIRP was dismissed, affirming the statutory cessation of moratorium.

View Source

← Previous Next →

NCLAT determined that the moratorium period of 180 days u/s ...

NCLAT Rules 180-Day Moratorium Under IBC Section 101(1) Is Mandatory, Cannot Be Extended By Any Authority.

January 24, 2025

Case Laws IBC AT

You may also like:

NCLAT addressed the computation of limitation periods for filing appeals under IBC. The tribunal held that while the 30-day limitation period under Section 61 can be...

Intimation for composition levy - Provisional registration or new registration before 31.3.2018 - period of limitation extended from 90 days to 180 days - Rule 3 of the...

When authorities of Enforcement Directorate (ED) have reasons to believe, based on material, that any person possesses proceeds of crime and is likely to conceal or...

The Appellate Tribunal addressed two key issues: 1) The duration for which property can be retained u/s 20(3) of PMLA, 2002, and 2) The constitution of the Adjudicating...

The ‘I&B Code’ has specified time frame for conclusion of ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’ within 180 days and the extended period prescribed is 270 days. With...

The NCLAT condoned the 1 day delay in filing the appeal, holding that as per Rule 22 of NCLAT Rules, 2016 and its orders, the date of e-filing has to be treated as the...

Cenvat / MODVAT Credit - All this would indicate as to how the makers and framers of the Rule did not intend to deny MODVAT credit simply because the inputs were not...

Extension of time limitation - provisional order of attachment of immovable properties - whether the Enforcement Directorate (ED) can seek refuge under the orders passed...

The High Court dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner, being a registered person not liable for registration before the appointed day of 01.07.2017, sought...

The High Court considered an application for compounding contravention under FEMA. The petitioner filed Form FC-TRS belatedly, leading to investigations and complaints....

The NCLAT held that the Adjudicating Authority failed to consider the amendments to Section 14 of the IBC introduced by Act 1 of 2020. The impugned order conflicted with...

The High Court held that respondent No. 3 cannot avoid deciding the petitioners' application dated 20 December 2023 seeking an advance ruling on the taxability of sale...

The appellant sought lapse of the attachment order u/s 5(1) and (3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, questioning the legality of the order issued in...

Claim of balance additional depreciation on the assets which were put to use in earlier year - Number of days asset put to use - whether machinery is put to use for less...

Rule 48 of the NCLAT Rules clearly stipulates service of notice on the other side, pursuant to issuance of notice by the NCLAT in the appeal, regardless of supply of...

Quick Updates: