https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790871 Where a litigant, after being notified of the correct statutory appellate remedy, continues to pursue writ, appeal and review proceedings, Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is unavailable because the earlier proceedings are not shown to be bona fide, diligent or in good faith. The supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 cannot be used to regulate NCLAT proceedings or override the special appellate scheme under the Companies Act. As the company appeal was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period and no valid exclusion of time was established, the delay application was rejected and the appeal was held barred by limitation. en-us Thu, 30 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 May 2026 07:40:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790871 Where a litigant, after being notified of the correct statutory appellate remedy, continues to pursue writ, appeal and review proceedings, Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is unavailable because the earlier proceedings are not shown to be bona fide, diligent or in good faith. The supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 cannot be used to regulate NCLAT proceedings or override the special appellate scheme under the Companies Act. As the company appeal was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period and no valid exclusion of time was established, the delay application was rejected and the appeal was held barred by limitation. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 30 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790871