https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304051 The appeal was required to be filed within the limitation period under the Companies Act, with condonation available only within the statutory extension permitted by that provision. Because the defects notified by the Registry were not cured within the time prescribed under the NCLAT Rules, the refiling was treated as a fresh filing. Once the outer limit for condonation had expired, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to extend time further or invoke inherent powers to bypass the statutory bar. The 338-day delay in refiling therefore could not be condoned, and the appeal remained barred by limitation. en-us Wed, 30 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Sep 2022 07:23:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304051 The appeal was required to be filed within the limitation period under the Companies Act, with condonation available only within the statutory extension permitted by that provision. Because the defects notified by the Registry were not cured within the time prescribed under the NCLAT Rules, the refiling was treated as a fresh filing. Once the outer limit for condonation had expired, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to extend time further or invoke inherent powers to bypass the statutory bar. The 338-day delay in refiling therefore could not be condoned, and the appeal remained barred by limitation. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 30 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304051