Condonation of delay depends on strict limitation rules; tribunal vacation exclusion was unavailable and the appeal remained time-barred.

Exclusion of a tribunal vacation period was not available where the limitation period had not expired during the closure period, so the filing delay could not be saved on that basis. A party to the proceedings could not rely on lack of knowledge of the order, and the record did not show sufficient cause for the delay. The request for a certified copy was also not pursued with diligence within the running limitation period. On these facts, the delay was not condonable and the appeal was treated as time-barred under the insolvency limitation framework.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned by excluding the tribunal vacation period and whether the appeal was within limitation.

Analysis: The appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period under the insolvency law. The plea that the period of closure of the tribunal should be excluded was rejected because exclusion under the limitation framework applies only when the limitation period expires during the period of closure. The appellant, being a party to the proceedings, could not rely on want of knowledge of the order, and the record did not show sufficient cause for the delay. The application for certified copy was also not pursued with diligence within the running limitation period.

Conclusion: The delay was not condonable and the appeal was time-barred.

---