Mis-declaration and Concealment: confiscation affirmed, transaction value re-determined and mandatory penalty sustained; redemption allowed on payment...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5561 to 5580 of 96208 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Condonation of an inordinate refiling delay was refused where...
Condonation of refiling delay refused where repeated defects, lack of diligence and vague explanations defeated the appeal against resolution plan approval.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Condonation of an inordinate refiling delay was refused where the appellant failed to show sufficient cause for curing repeated defects in an appeal against approval of a resolution plan. The NCLAT held that liberal consideration of refiling delay depends on the facts of each case, but the appellant had acted without promptness after repeated defect notifications, and the appeal was filed after approval and implementation of the resolution plan. General explanations of logistical difficulty, bulky papers and holidays were found insufficient, and non-deposit of the requisite fee indicated lack of diligence. The application for condonation was rejected, and the memorandum of appeal was consequently rejected.
Condonation of an inordinate refiling delay was refused where the appellant failed to show sufficient cause for curing repeated defects in an appeal against approval of a resolution plan. The NCLAT held that liberal consideration of refiling delay depends on the facts of each case, but the appellant had acted without promptness after repeated defect notifications, and the appeal was filed after approval and implementation of the resolution plan. General explanations of logistical difficulty, bulky papers and holidays were found insufficient, and non-deposit of the requisite fee indicated lack of diligence. The application for condonation was rejected, and the memorandum of appeal was consequently rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.