<?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>2026 (4) TMI 70 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789001</link>
    <description>Where leave to amend pleadings is granted, the amendment must be carried out within the time fixed by the court or, if no time is specified, within the default period under Order VI Rule 18 CPC. A delay of 495 days in filing the amended pleading remained unexplained, and the litigant&#039;s reliance on counsel&#039;s or clerical lapse was unsupported by evidence. General provisions for enlargement of time could not override the specific procedural bar governing amendment of pleadings. The refusal to condone the delay and permit the amendment was therefore upheld, and the rejection of the extension application sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2026 08:50:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=894583" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 70 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789001</link>
      <description>Where leave to amend pleadings is granted, the amendment must be carried out within the time fixed by the court or, if no time is specified, within the default period under Order VI Rule 18 CPC. A delay of 495 days in filing the amended pleading remained unexplained, and the litigant&#039;s reliance on counsel&#039;s or clerical lapse was unsupported by evidence. General provisions for enlargement of time could not override the specific procedural bar governing amendment of pleadings. The refusal to condone the delay and permit the amendment was therefore upheld, and the rejection of the extension application sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789001</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>