https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770873 Delay in filing the appeal was not condonable because the appellant had knowledge of the impugned order at least from 16.08.2024, yet the explanation offered did not cover the entire period of delay. The grounds of non-availability of the order copy, later email knowledge, certified copy steps, and court holidays were held insufficient to show diligence or sufficient cause. The impugned order was only a modification of an earlier substantive order approving the resolution plan, which itself had not been challenged. Under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, delay can be condoned only within the statutory limit on strict proof of sufficient cause, and the condonation application was rejected. en-us Thu, 15 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 May 2025 08:39:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770873 Delay in filing the appeal was not condonable because the appellant had knowledge of the impugned order at least from 16.08.2024, yet the explanation offered did not cover the entire period of delay. The grounds of non-availability of the order copy, later email knowledge, certified copy steps, and court holidays were held insufficient to show diligence or sufficient cause. The impugned order was only a modification of an earlier substantive order approving the resolution plan, which itself had not been challenged. Under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, delay can be condoned only within the statutory limit on strict proof of sufficient cause, and the condonation application was rejected. Case-Laws IBC Thu, 15 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770873