The commercial wisdom of CoC is not to be interfered with, excepting the limited scope as provided under Sections 30 and 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) | Whether provisions of Section 14 of Limitation Act would be available for exclusion of the period spent in Writ Petition – Kalpraj Dharamshi & Anr. Vs. Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd. & Anr. – Supreme Court

This judgment covers:
A. Whether the appeals filed by KIAL before NCLAT were within limitation?.
A.1 Period of limitation for filing appeal under Section 61 of IBC before NCLAT.
A.2 Whether the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act would be available for exclusion of the period spent in Writ Petition.
A.3 Exclusion of the period spent in Writ Petition in the present case.
B. Whether there was waiver and acquiescence by KIAL, so as to estop it from challenging the participation of Kalpraj?
B.1 Applicability of the law laid down in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. in IBC.
C. Whether NCLAT was right in law in interfering with the decision of CoC of accepting the Resolution Plan of Kalpraj?
C.1 Existing rulings on commercial wisdom decision of CoC.
C.2 The scope of jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) and the Appellate Authority (NCLAT).
D. Other: Doctrine of waiver/Principle of waiver.

The commercial wisdom of CoC is not to be interfered with, excepting the limited scope as provided under Sections 30 and 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) | Whether provisions of Section 14 of Limitation Act would be available for exclusion of the period spent in Writ Petition – Kalpraj Dharamshi & Anr. Vs. Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd. & Anr. – Supreme Court Read Post »