https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467888 Repeated reliance on an explanation for delay that had already been judicially rejected and attained finality could not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of a 1116-day delay in filing the appeal. The Court held that a party cannot re-agitate the same grounds through a different procedural route after an earlier reasoned refusal, and that equitable considerations cannot override the failure to explain delay properly. It also found the High Court misapplied N. Mohan because the factual position there was materially different on service of summons and participation in the suit. The refusal to condone delay was therefore upheld and the contrary order was set aside. en-us Tue, 13 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Apr 2026 20:27:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467888 Repeated reliance on an explanation for delay that had already been judicially rejected and attained finality could not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of a 1116-day delay in filing the appeal. The Court held that a party cannot re-agitate the same grounds through a different procedural route after an earlier reasoned refusal, and that equitable considerations cannot override the failure to explain delay properly. It also found the High Court misapplied N. Mohan because the factual position there was materially different on service of summons and participation in the suit. The refusal to condone delay was therefore upheld and the contrary order was set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 13 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467888