https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789545 Where a special restoration rule expressly requires an application within 30 days and proof of sufficient cause after dismissal for default, inherent powers and general enlargement of time cannot be used to bypass that scheme. The absence of a separate condonation application is not conclusive, but the Tribunal must still be satisfied that sufficient cause exists within the prescribed framework. Repeated non-appearance, a five-month delay, and a largely unexplained counsel lapse were treated as insufficient in insolvency proceedings, where expedition and finality are central. Restoration was therefore refused and the dismissal of the restoration request was sustained. en-us Wed, 08 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Apr 2026 09:00:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789545 Where a special restoration rule expressly requires an application within 30 days and proof of sufficient cause after dismissal for default, inherent powers and general enlargement of time cannot be used to bypass that scheme. The absence of a separate condonation application is not conclusive, but the Tribunal must still be satisfied that sufficient cause exists within the prescribed framework. Repeated non-appearance, a five-month delay, and a largely unexplained counsel lapse were treated as insufficient in insolvency proceedings, where expedition and finality are central. Restoration was therefore refused and the dismissal of the restoration request was sustained. Case-Laws IBC Wed, 08 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789545