https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307398 The court condoned a 39-day delay in filing an appeal against the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission order, citing a communication gap between the appellant and their advocate in Delhi as "sufficient cause" under Section 16(3) of the Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998. Emphasizing the need for substantial justice over technicalities, the court held that the delay should be excused to ensure fairness. The matter was allowed to proceed to a hearing on its merits, and the court disposed of the case without costs. en-us Tue, 14 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Apr 2023 10:19:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307398 The court condoned a 39-day delay in filing an appeal against the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission order, citing a communication gap between the appellant and their advocate in Delhi as "sufficient cause" under Section 16(3) of the Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998. Emphasizing the need for substantial justice over technicalities, the court held that the delay should be excused to ensure fairness. The matter was allowed to proceed to a hearing on its merits, and the court disposed of the case without costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 14 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307398