https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93056 The NCLAT dismissed the appeal and refused restoration of the company petition under Section 9, affirming the adjudicating authority's rejection of revival and delay-condonation applications under NCLT Rule 48. The Tribunal held that repeated non-appearance of the Appellant's designated counsel evidenced lack of due diligence and absence of sufficient cause, not mere procedural lapse; shifting blame to former counsel and belatedly filing the restoration and condonation applications were insufficient. Restoration under Rule 48(2) was held available only on bona fide, prompt, and satisfactorily explained absence. Given repeated defaults, absence of credible justification and inaction, the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed. en-us Sat, 04 Oct 2025 08:22:37 +0530 Sat, 04 Oct 2025 08:22:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93056 The NCLAT dismissed the appeal and refused restoration of the company petition under Section 9, affirming the adjudicating authority's rejection of revival and delay-condonation applications under NCLT Rule 48. The Tribunal held that repeated non-appearance of the Appellant's designated counsel evidenced lack of due diligence and absence of sufficient cause, not mere procedural lapse; shifting blame to former counsel and belatedly filing the restoration and condonation applications were insufficient. Restoration under Rule 48(2) was held available only on bona fide, prompt, and satisfactorily explained absence. Given repeated defaults, absence of credible justification and inaction, the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed. Highlights IBC Sat, 04 Oct 2025 08:22:37 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93056