TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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: Whether the delay of 147 days in re-filing the appeal deserved condonation under Rule 26 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016.
Analysis: The appeal was repeatedly returned for defects, and the record showed that the same defects continued for several rounds of re-filing. The explanation offered did not satisfactorily account for the prolonged delay or show justifiable cause for the inaction. The Tribunal relied on the governing principles that re-filing delay is to be examined on sufficient justification and that the party must show diligence in curing defects within a reasonable time.
Conclusion: The delay in re-filing was not condoned and the application for condonation was rejected.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
