https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789001 Where leave to amend had been granted but the amendment was not carried out within the time fixed, Order VI Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure barred filing it later unless the court extended time. The Tribunal found no such extension and held that the specific procedural restriction prevailed over general provisions on enlargement of time or condonation of delay. The explanation that counsel and clerk were negligent was rejected because no credible evidence showed prompt instructions, follow-up, or due diligence. The delay of 495 days was treated as inordinate and unexplained, so the request to permit the belated amendment failed. en-us Thu, 29 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Apr 2026 08:50:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789001 Where leave to amend had been granted but the amendment was not carried out within the time fixed, Order VI Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure barred filing it later unless the court extended time. The Tribunal found no such extension and held that the specific procedural restriction prevailed over general provisions on enlargement of time or condonation of delay. The explanation that counsel and clerk were negligent was rejected because no credible evidence showed prompt instructions, follow-up, or due diligence. The delay of 495 days was treated as inordinate and unexplained, so the request to permit the belated amendment failed. Case-Laws IBC Thu, 29 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789001