TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the delay of 198 days in re-filing the appeal was sufficiently explained and liable to be condoned.
Analysis: The appeal was filed within the extended limitation period, but the defects pointed out by the Registry remained uncured for a prolonged period. The explanation based on the unavailability of the authorised signatory was found to be unconvincing, since a company can act through other authorised persons and no material showed why alternate arrangements were not made. The repeated failure to cure the same defects over several dates reflected want of seriousness and due diligence. In the context of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the limitation regime is strict and time-bound, and condonation can be granted only on showing sufficient cause. Mere procedural inconvenience, without a credible explanation for prolonged inaction, does not satisfy that standard.
Conclusion: The delay of 198 days in re-filing was not condoned. The condonation application was rejected, and the appeal failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Condonation of delay in re-filing requires a credible showing of sufficient cause, and prolonged delay caused by negligence or lack of diligence is not condonable merely on equitable grounds.
TaxTMI 
