<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2021 (3) TMI 1458 - Supreme Court (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456832</link>
    <description>Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act read with the Commercial Courts Act, but only in a strict, exceptional manner consistent with the legislative policy of speedy disposal and finality. The phrase &quot;sufficient cause&quot; must be construed in that context, so long or unexplained delays are not to be routinely condoned. The earlier view that delay beyond 120 days could never be condoned in such appeals was rejected as too rigid and inconsistent with the commercial arbitration regime. The Court applied the revised standard to the individual appeals, allowing relief only where the explanation for delay was legally adequate and refusing condonation where the delay remained unexplained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2025 10:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=764623" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (3) TMI 1458 - Supreme Court (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456832</link>
      <description>Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act read with the Commercial Courts Act, but only in a strict, exceptional manner consistent with the legislative policy of speedy disposal and finality. The phrase &quot;sufficient cause&quot; must be construed in that context, so long or unexplained delays are not to be routinely condoned. The earlier view that delay beyond 120 days could never be condoned in such appeals was rejected as too rigid and inconsistent with the commercial arbitration regime. The Court applied the revised standard to the individual appeals, allowing relief only where the explanation for delay was legally adequate and refusing condonation where the delay remained unexplained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456832</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>