Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3001 to 3020 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Limitation for an appeal under section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code runs from the date of pronouncement of the impugned order, not from the date of upload or the appellant's date of knowledge. The tribunal applied the statutory time-bound appellate scheme and held that the order pronounced on 08.12.2025 triggered limitation from that date. It also held that an alleged technical glitch in the e-filing portal could not justify condonation once the appeal was filed beyond the maximum condonable period of thirty days plus fifteen days, because the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain a delayed appeal on equitable or technical grounds. The condonation application and appeal were rejected as time-barred.
Limitation for an appeal under section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code runs from the date of pronouncement of the impugned order, not from the date of upload or the appellant's date of knowledge. The tribunal applied the statutory time-bound appellate scheme and held that the order pronounced on 08.12.2025 triggered limitation from that date. It also held that an alleged technical glitch in the e-filing portal could not justify condonation once the appeal was filed beyond the maximum condonable period of thirty days plus fifteen days, because the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain a delayed appeal on equitable or technical grounds. The condonation application and appeal were rejected as time-barred.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
