<?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 (8) TMI 1228 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777040</link>
    <description>NCLAT dismissed the application for condonation of 125 days&#039; delay in refiling, holding the applicant failed to show sufficient or justiciable cause. The court found no proof of Registry misdirection, described the repeated defects and delay in curing them (including POA issues and document renumbering) as gross negligence and lack of diligence, and rejected the explanations as frivolous. No exceptional circumstances prevented timely refiling; given IBC&#039;s time-bound nature and need for finality, balance of convenience did not favour the applicant, so the condonation plea was refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2025 12:45:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=845392" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (8) TMI 1228 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777040</link>
      <description>NCLAT dismissed the application for condonation of 125 days&#039; delay in refiling, holding the applicant failed to show sufficient or justiciable cause. The court found no proof of Registry misdirection, described the repeated defects and delay in curing them (including POA issues and document renumbering) as gross negligence and lack of diligence, and rejected the explanations as frivolous. No exceptional circumstances prevented timely refiling; given IBC&#039;s time-bound nature and need for finality, balance of convenience did not favour the applicant, so the condonation plea was refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777040</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>