https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78490 The case involved a petition for condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the NCLAT. The petitioner, a bank, did not apply for a certified copy of the impugned order within the time limitation. The NCLAT held that adherence to the I&B Code, 2016 is mandatory, and the law of limitation bars the remedy but does not extinguish the right. The tribunal emphasized that equities cannot override clear rules. The petitioner's reasons for delay, such as seeking legal advice and festivals, were deemed insufficient. The NCLAT concluded that no sufficient cause was shown for condoning the 3-day delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. en-us Fri, 14 Jun 2024 08:16:33 +0530 Fri, 14 Jun 2024 08:16:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78490 The case involved a petition for condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the NCLAT. The petitioner, a bank, did not apply for a certified copy of the impugned order within the time limitation. The NCLAT held that adherence to the I&B Code, 2016 is mandatory, and the law of limitation bars the remedy but does not extinguish the right. The tribunal emphasized that equities cannot override clear rules. The petitioner's reasons for delay, such as seeking legal advice and festivals, were deemed insufficient. The NCLAT concluded that no sufficient cause was shown for condoning the 3-day delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Highlights Insolvency and Bankruptcy Fri, 14 Jun 2024 08:16:33 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78490