<?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>Restoration after dismissal for default cannot bypass express limitation or inherent powers absent sufficient cause</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98634</link>
    <description>Rule 48(2) of the NCLT Rules governs restoration of a petition dismissed for non-appearance and requires an application within thirty days on showing sufficient cause. The NCLAT held that a restoration request filed about five months after dismissal for non-prosecution was time-barred and could not be saved by inherent powers under Rule 11 or the general power to extend time under Rule 15, because those powers cannot override an express procedural mandate. It also found no sufficient cause for condonation, noting repeated absence, prolonged non-prosecution and inadequate vigilance despite reliance on counsel&#039;s lapse. The rejection of restoration was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 09:00:44 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 09:00:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=896008" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Restoration after dismissal for default cannot bypass express limitation or inherent powers absent sufficient cause</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98634</link>
      <description>Rule 48(2) of the NCLT Rules governs restoration of a petition dismissed for non-appearance and requires an application within thirty days on showing sufficient cause. The NCLAT held that a restoration request filed about five months after dismissal for non-prosecution was time-barred and could not be saved by inherent powers under Rule 11 or the general power to extend time under Rule 15, because those powers cannot override an express procedural mandate. It also found no sufficient cause for condonation, noting repeated absence, prolonged non-prosecution and inadequate vigilance despite reliance on counsel&#039;s lapse. The rejection of restoration was upheld.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 09:00:44 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98634</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>