https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360433 Rule 26(3) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 cannot extend defect-curing time where the appeal, after re-presentation, is brought beyond the limitation period under Section 421(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. The initial filing was within time, but the cured appeal was re-presented after expiry of the 45-day statutory period; any further extension under the proviso to Section 421(3) lies only with the Appellate Tribunal, not the Registrar. As the Rules cannot override the Act, the compliance period could not be enlarged under Rule 26(3) once limitation had expired, and the application was not allowed. en-us Mon, 02 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 May 2018 05:54:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360433 Rule 26(3) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 cannot extend defect-curing time where the appeal, after re-presentation, is brought beyond the limitation period under Section 421(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. The initial filing was within time, but the cured appeal was re-presented after expiry of the 45-day statutory period; any further extension under the proviso to Section 421(3) lies only with the Appellate Tribunal, not the Registrar. As the Rules cannot override the Act, the compliance period could not be enlarged under Rule 26(3) once limitation had expired, and the application was not allowed. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 02 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360433