https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278976 Delay in filing an appeal was refused to be condoned because the explanation of counsel lapse and non-communication was inconsistent with the record, and the appellant, as a corporate litigant, had not shown continuous diligence or a credible bona fide cause. The recovery decree and interest were upheld because the invoices for work done were undisputed, only part-payment was admitted, and no documentary proof of full and final settlement or discharge of liability was produced. The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving payment, so the quantified decree was found supported by the record and no interference was warranted. en-us Sun, 28 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Feb 2019 06:50:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278976 Delay in filing an appeal was refused to be condoned because the explanation of counsel lapse and non-communication was inconsistent with the record, and the appellant, as a corporate litigant, had not shown continuous diligence or a credible bona fide cause. The recovery decree and interest were upheld because the invoices for work done were undisputed, only part-payment was admitted, and no documentary proof of full and final settlement or discharge of liability was produced. The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving payment, so the quantified decree was found supported by the record and no interference was warranted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Sun, 28 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278976