Condonation of Delay is not a matter of Right or Routine. There is no difference between a Good Cause/Sufficient Cause in Law – The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Mr. Arunava Sikdar RP M/s. The National Sewing Thread Company Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai

The NCLAT held that it cannot be again said that the Instant Company Appeal on the file of this Tribunal is admittedly filed, with a delay of 65 days, which is more than the permissible limit of 45 days, as envisaged under Section 61 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. To be noted, that Condonation of Delay is not a matter of Right or Routine. There is no difference between a Good Cause/Sufficient Cause in Law. The discretion of the Tribunal/Court of Law to condone the delay in a given case is to be exercised by a Tribunal/Court of Law based on sound exercise of prudent discretion and by application of Judicial Mind.

Related Posts:

If any Public depositor applies showing due of the debt claiming itself as operational creditor and the Resolution Professional or the Tribunal do not accept the claim on the ground that they are not financial creditor, we allow the appellant to raise the question before the Tribunal and if any adverse decision is given by the Tribunal, it will be open to the appellant to raise the issue before NCLAT- Hind Motors India Ltd. Vs. Adjudicating Authority NCLT, Chandigarh – NCLAT New Delhi

IBC-Case Laws-NCLAT
Scroll to Top