<?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>Condonation of delay in share transfer disputes upheld where illness-based explanation and medical evidence showed sufficient cause.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99234</link>
    <description>Illness supported by undisputed medical material was treated as sufficient cause for condoning a 36-day delay in a petition under Section 58(3) of the Companies Act, with the Tribunal noting that the explanation remained uncontroverted despite opportunity. It held that &quot;sufficient cause&quot; is to be construed liberally to secure decision on merits, that Section 58(3) does not create a non-condonable outer limit, and that the Limitation Act principles could apply through Section 433 read with Section 29, with Rule 11 also available to advance substantial justice. The challenge to condonation was rejected and the delay remained condoned.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 07:29:33 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 07:29:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=898707" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Condonation of delay in share transfer disputes upheld where illness-based explanation and medical evidence showed sufficient cause.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99234</link>
      <description>Illness supported by undisputed medical material was treated as sufficient cause for condoning a 36-day delay in a petition under Section 58(3) of the Companies Act, with the Tribunal noting that the explanation remained uncontroverted despite opportunity. It held that &quot;sufficient cause&quot; is to be construed liberally to secure decision on merits, that Section 58(3) does not create a non-condonable outer limit, and that the Limitation Act principles could apply through Section 433 read with Section 29, with Rule 11 also available to advance substantial justice. The challenge to condonation was rejected and the delay remained condoned.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 07:29:33 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99234</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>