<?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>2025 (7) TMI 801 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI - LB</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774733</link>
    <description>Limitation under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code runs from the date of pronouncement of the impugned order, and the appellate tribunal cannot condone delay beyond the statutory outer limit of 15 days after the initial 30 days. The appellant&#039;s request to exclude time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act failed because the earlier appeal did not validly challenge the impugned order within limitation and the record showed no due diligence or good faith. As good faith under Section 2(h) requires due care and attention, which was absent, the condonation application was not maintainable and the delay could not be condoned.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2025 08:36:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=835844" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 801 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI - LB</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774733</link>
      <description>Limitation under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code runs from the date of pronouncement of the impugned order, and the appellate tribunal cannot condone delay beyond the statutory outer limit of 15 days after the initial 30 days. The appellant&#039;s request to exclude time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act failed because the earlier appeal did not validly challenge the impugned order within limitation and the record showed no due diligence or good faith. As good faith under Section 2(h) requires due care and attention, which was absent, the condonation application was not maintainable and the delay could not be condoned.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774733</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>