https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446801 The NCLAT dismissed both the delay condonation application and the main appeal. The appellant argued that under the doctrine of merger, limitation should be counted from a subsequent clarification order dated 17th August, 2023, rather than the original order dated 2nd May, 2023. The NCLAT held that since the appeal was filed against the original order and not the subsequent clarification order, the doctrine of merger did not apply. Relying on SC precedent in DSR Steel, the tribunal ruled that the original order must be challenged within the prescribed time limit, and the appeal was filed beyond the 15-day limitation period that the tribunal could condone. en-us Fri, 08 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Dec 2023 10:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446801 The NCLAT dismissed both the delay condonation application and the main appeal. The appellant argued that under the doctrine of merger, limitation should be counted from a subsequent clarification order dated 17th August, 2023, rather than the original order dated 2nd May, 2023. The NCLAT held that since the appeal was filed against the original order and not the subsequent clarification order, the doctrine of merger did not apply. Relying on SC precedent in DSR Steel, the tribunal ruled that the original order must be challenged within the prescribed time limit, and the appeal was filed beyond the 15-day limitation period that the tribunal could condone. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Fri, 08 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446801