https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292757 Condonation of a 316-day delay in filing an appeal against a delisting order was refused because the appellant failed to show sufficient cause. The explanations that the order had not been served, that documents were obtained later, and that internal difficulties delayed engagement of counsel were found vague, unsupported by documentary proof, and treated as an afterthought. The governing principle applied was that delay can be condoned only on a bona fide and legally adequate explanation; it is not granted as a matter of right. The condonation application was rejected and the appeal dismissed. en-us Mon, 11 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Jan 2021 16:02:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292757 Condonation of a 316-day delay in filing an appeal against a delisting order was refused because the appellant failed to show sufficient cause. The explanations that the order had not been served, that documents were obtained later, and that internal difficulties delayed engagement of counsel were found vague, unsupported by documentary proof, and treated as an afterthought. The governing principle applied was that delay can be condoned only on a bona fide and legally adequate explanation; it is not granted as a matter of right. The condonation application was rejected and the appeal dismissed. Case-Laws SEBI Mon, 11 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292757