<?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 (3) TMI 1512 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI - LB</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463002</link>
    <description>A refiling delay of 193 days was held not to be condonable because the explanation offered was unsatisfactory. Personal difficulties and travel inconvenience were found insufficient to establish sufficient cause for such a substantial delay, particularly in proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code where timelines are material. The application for condonation was therefore rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2025 20:41:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=839749" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 1512 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI - LB</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463002</link>
      <description>A refiling delay of 193 days was held not to be condonable because the explanation offered was unsatisfactory. Personal difficulties and travel inconvenience were found insufficient to establish sufficient cause for such a substantial delay, particularly in proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code where timelines are material. The application for condonation was therefore rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463002</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>