TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the period spent in prosecuting the review petition was liable to be excluded for computing limitation for the appeal under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. (ii) Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the appellate tribunal warranted condonation under the Companies Act, 2013.
Issue (i): Whether the period spent in prosecuting the review petition was liable to be excluded for computing limitation for the appeal under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Analysis: The review petition had been rejected as not maintainable, and the order recorded that the appellant had prosecuted that proceeding before a forum lacking jurisdiction to entertain it. In that situation, the time consumed in the review proceedings could not be ignored while computing limitation for the subsequent appeal.
Conclusion: The exclusion of time spent in the review petition was accepted.
Issue (ii): Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the appellate tribunal warranted condonation under the Companies Act, 2013.
Analysis: Even after excluding the review period, there remained delay at multiple stages, including delay in filing the restoration application, delay in filing the review petition, and further delay of more than one year in preferring the appeal. The delay was not satisfactorily explained, and the statutory scheme under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 permitted condonation only within a limited period.
Conclusion: The delay was not liable to be condoned.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, as the appellant was unable to justify the cumulative delay and could not obtain condonation for filing the appeal beyond the permissible period.
Ratio Decidendi: Exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not compel condonation where the appellant remains guilty of unexplained delay at successive stages and the appeal is filed beyond the statutorily permissible period for condonation.
TaxTMI 
