https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779328 The NCLAT dismissed the appeal and refused restoration, finding repeated non-appearance of the appellant and its counsel demonstrated lack of due diligence and absence of sufficient cause under NCLT Rule 48(2). The tribunal held restoration and condonation applications were filed belatedly, advanced no credible grounds beyond blaming former counsel, and the appellant failed to act with promptness or good faith. Given the consistent lapses and opportunity to be heard, the dismissal of the company petition and subsequent restoration applications was upheld and the appeal rejected. en-us Thu, 25 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Oct 2025 08:22:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779328 The NCLAT dismissed the appeal and refused restoration, finding repeated non-appearance of the appellant and its counsel demonstrated lack of due diligence and absence of sufficient cause under NCLT Rule 48(2). The tribunal held restoration and condonation applications were filed belatedly, advanced no credible grounds beyond blaming former counsel, and the appellant failed to act with promptness or good faith. Given the consistent lapses and opportunity to be heard, the dismissal of the company petition and subsequent restoration applications was upheld and the appeal rejected. Case-Laws IBC Thu, 25 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779328