<?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 (2) TMI 1490 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466670</link>
    <description>Application concerns condonation of a 170-day refiling delay for an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The legal point emphasised is that condonation requires reasonable, cogent grounds supported by satisfactory proof; negligence, lack of vigilance, inordinate delay, and unsupported personal excuses do not amount to sufficient cause. Applied to the facts, the stated reasons (misplaced pages, counsel&#039;s personal events, family medical issues, house shifting) lacked corroboration and reflected want of vigilance, leading to rejection of the condonation application and dismissal of the memo of appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2026 20:10:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=886649" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 1490 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466670</link>
      <description>Application concerns condonation of a 170-day refiling delay for an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The legal point emphasised is that condonation requires reasonable, cogent grounds supported by satisfactory proof; negligence, lack of vigilance, inordinate delay, and unsupported personal excuses do not amount to sufficient cause. Applied to the facts, the stated reasons (misplaced pages, counsel&#039;s personal events, family medical issues, house shifting) lacked corroboration and reflected want of vigilance, leading to rejection of the condonation application and dismissal of the memo of appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466670</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>