https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791239 Condonation of a 198-day delay in re-filing was refused because the explanation for prolonged inaction was not a sufficient cause. The company's reliance on the unavailability of its authorised signatory was found unconvincing, as it could have acted through other authorised persons and no material showed why alternate arrangements were not made. Repeated failure to cure the same registry defects over several dates showed lack of seriousness and due diligence. In the insolvency context, the limitation regime is strict and time-bound, and procedural inconvenience without a credible explanation does not justify condonation. The condonation application was rejected and the appeal failed. en-us Wed, 06 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 May 2026 07:29:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791239 Condonation of a 198-day delay in re-filing was refused because the explanation for prolonged inaction was not a sufficient cause. The company's reliance on the unavailability of its authorised signatory was found unconvincing, as it could have acted through other authorised persons and no material showed why alternate arrangements were not made. Repeated failure to cure the same registry defects over several dates showed lack of seriousness and due diligence. In the insolvency context, the limitation regime is strict and time-bound, and procedural inconvenience without a credible explanation does not justify condonation. The condonation application was rejected and the appeal failed. Case-Laws IBC Wed, 06 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791239