Delayed judgment pronouncement alone does not invalidate Tribunal orders, while rectification cannot reopen evidence or negate confiscation-related pe...
Agricultural-land reinvestment qualifies when transfer consideration precedes replacement purchase, while unexamined claims may be reassessed on escap...
Bona fide public fixed-deposit explanations prevent concealment penalties where unexplained-credit additions lack independent evidence of undisclosed ...
Restoration of an insolvency application dismissed for non-prosecution can be supported by sufficient cause where former counsel deliberately failed to appear or enable substitution despite a continuing vakalatnama; that default should not be attributed to the litigant. Rule 48(2) of the NCLT Rules prescribes a 30-day restoration period but does not expressly prohibit a later recall request. Section 238A applies the Limitation Act, as far as may be, to insolvency proceedings, allowing Section 5 condonation on sufficient cause. Where the restoration request itself explains the delay, a separate condonation application is unnecessary, permitting merits consideration of the underlying claim.
Restoration of an insolvency application dismissed for non-prosecution can be supported by sufficient cause where former counsel deliberately failed to appear or enable substitution despite a continuing vakalatnama; that default should not be attributed to the litigant. Rule 48(2) of the NCLT Rules prescribes a 30-day restoration period but does not expressly prohibit a later recall request. Section 238A applies the Limitation Act, as far as may be, to insolvency proceedings, allowing Section 5 condonation on sufficient cause. Where the restoration request itself explains the delay, a separate condonation application is unnecessary, permitting merits consideration of the underlying claim.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4912 
