Inventory write-off and fraudulent/wrongful trading allegations in corporate insolvency led to director liability principles applied and appeal dismis...
A writ petitioner sought to set aside rejection of a statutory appeal as time-barred and to compel acceptance beyond the maximum condonable period. Relying on binding precedent, the Court held that when the statute caps condonation, the appellate authority lacks power to admit an appeal filed after the aggregate period, and the HC's Article 226 jurisdiction cannot be used to override substantive limitation provisions or invoke Section 5 of the Limitation Act to extend the outer limit; consequently, no direction could be issued to entertain the belated appeal. Having opted for the statutory appellate remedy, the petitioner could not seek writ scrutiny of the original order except on jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice, which was not shown; the petition was dismissed - HC
A writ petitioner sought to set aside rejection of a statutory appeal as time-barred and to compel acceptance beyond the maximum condonable period. Relying on binding precedent, the Court held that when the statute caps condonation, the appellate authority lacks power to admit an appeal filed after the aggregate period, and the HC's Article 226 jurisdiction cannot be used to override substantive limitation provisions or invoke Section 5 of the Limitation Act to extend the outer limit; consequently, no direction could be issued to entertain the belated appeal. Having opted for the statutory appellate remedy, the petitioner could not seek writ scrutiny of the original order except on jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice, which was not shown; the petition was dismissed - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
