https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772317 Inordinate delay in refiling company appeals was not condoned because the explanation for the default was vague and unsupported by specifics on when the records were misplaced or recovered. Although Rule 26 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 permits flexibility in dealing with refiling defects and the distinction between filing limitation and refiling delay was recognised, condonation still required a credible, reasonable explanation showing sufficient cause. The Tribunal found lack of diligence and bona fides, noting that defects remained uncured for over 200 days despite more than one counsel being on record, and dismissed the condonation applications. en-us Mon, 28 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Jun 2025 08:32:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772317 Inordinate delay in refiling company appeals was not condoned because the explanation for the default was vague and unsupported by specifics on when the records were misplaced or recovered. Although Rule 26 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 permits flexibility in dealing with refiling defects and the distinction between filing limitation and refiling delay was recognised, condonation still required a credible, reasonable explanation showing sufficient cause. The Tribunal found lack of diligence and bona fides, noting that defects remained uncured for over 200 days despite more than one counsel being on record, and dismissed the condonation applications. Case-Laws IBC Mon, 28 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772317