TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>NCLAT rejects 38-day delay condonation in appeal after section 7 dismissal, limits jurisdiction to 15 days only</h1> <h3>Harish Kumar Versus Solitaire Infomedia Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.</h3> Harish Kumar Versus Solitaire Infomedia Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. - TMI Issues Involved:Condonation of delay in filing the appeal u/s 7.Summary:The appellant filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, which was dismissed as non-maintainable. The appellant sought exclusion of time u/s 14 of the Limitation Act based on a restoration application. However, the Tribunal found that the conditions for granting the benefit u/s 14 were not met. Reference was made to judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Tribunal to support the decision. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from cases where the benefit of u/s 14 was allowed due to specific circumstances like proceedings under SARFAESI Act or a writ petition. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of u/s 14 and rejected the application for condonation of delay, as their jurisdiction to condone the delay was limited to only 15 days.In the first issue, the appellant sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal u/s 7, citing a restoration application filed after the initial order was passed. The appellant argued for the exclusion of time u/s 14 of the Limitation Act based on this application, but the Tribunal found that the conditions for granting such benefit were not met in this case. The Tribunal referred to relevant judgments to support its decision and concluded that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of u/s 14.In the second issue, the Tribunal discussed a judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court where exclusion of time u/s 14 was allowed due to the filing of a writ petition. The Tribunal distinguished this case from the present one and emphasized that the circumstances were different. The Tribunal reiterated that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of u/s 14 and rejected the application for condonation of delay, as their jurisdiction to condone the delay was limited to only 15 days.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
