https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760537 NCLAT dismissed the delay condonation application for a 68-day delayed appeal filing. The tribunal found no sufficient cause shown by appellant for the delay under Section 421(3) proviso. Appellant was aware of the impugned order prior to the deadline and had filed two applications, demonstrating negligence rather than prevention by sufficient cause. Following SC precedent in Ramlal case, even if sufficient cause existed, condonation is discretionary, not a matter of right. The tribunal refused to exercise discretion given appellant's clear negligence in filing the appeal within the prescribed period. en-us Mon, 21 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Oct 2024 16:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760537 NCLAT dismissed the delay condonation application for a 68-day delayed appeal filing. The tribunal found no sufficient cause shown by appellant for the delay under Section 421(3) proviso. Appellant was aware of the impugned order prior to the deadline and had filed two applications, demonstrating negligence rather than prevention by sufficient cause. Following SC precedent in Ramlal case, even if sufficient cause existed, condonation is discretionary, not a matter of right. The tribunal refused to exercise discretion given appellant's clear negligence in filing the appeal within the prescribed period. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 21 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760537