{"id":224360,"date":"2020-01-22T11:00:45","date_gmt":"2020-01-22T05:30:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=224360"},"modified":"2020-01-22T10:53:34","modified_gmt":"2020-01-22T05:23:34","slug":"fema-appellate-tribunal-delay-of-370-days-condoned-despite-not-being-convinced-of-sufficient-cause-for-delay-as-dismissal-of-application-would-bar-examination-of-merits-of-appeal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/22\/fema-appellate-tribunal-delay-of-370-days-condoned-despite-not-being-convinced-of-sufficient-cause-for-delay-as-dismissal-of-application-would-bar-examination-of-merits-of-appeal\/","title":{"rendered":"FEMA Appellate Tribunal | Delay of 370 days condoned despite not being convinced of \u2018sufficient cause\u2019 for delay, as dismissal of application would bar examination of merits of appeal"},"content":{"rendered":"

Appellate Tribunal (FEMA): <\/b>Justice G.C. Mishra (Acting Chairman) allowed the application for the condonation of delay in respect to the substitution of the legal representatives (LRs) of the managing director of the deceased Ramesh Babu Muppalaneni of the company Sanjay Agro Traders (P) Ltd.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span>In the instant case, the deceased having died on 26-10-2017, the appellant failed to file an application for the substitution of his legal heirs. Rather the application for its condonation of delay was filed on 27-05-2019, which prayed to condone a delay of 296 days only though there was a delay of 370 days.<\/p>\n

The counsels for the appellant, S.K. Vasudeva Rao and Rabin Majumder pleaded that the delay in filing the application for the substitution of the LRs was not intentional but it happened due to the communication gap between the deceased\u2019s family and the counsel about the death of the deceased which reached the counsel much later on 05-09-2018 as the family was much disturbed from their irreparable loss. Moreover, on 06-09-2018 itself, the Tribunal allowed the appellant to file an appropriate application in that regard when he submitted for it.<\/p>\n

The counsel on behalf of the respondent, Aagam Kaur, however, contended that even though the family was in grief, the advocate could have moved an application for bringing the legal heirs on record. Also, there seemed no reasonable cause as to how he was prevented from moving a timely application. The Counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the case N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnanmurthy, <\/i>(1998) 7 SCC 123<\/a> <\/i>wherein it was clearly held that the law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redressal of the legal injury so suffered.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In view of the above case, the Tribunal allowed the application of condonation of delay in filing the applications for substitution of legal heirs subject to payment of Rs 25000 in each appeal to be paid within six weeks from the date of the order.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Observing \u201csufficient cause\u201d under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 <\/i>the Court noted the concept of reasonableness as brought out by the case Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy<\/i>, <\/i>(2013) 12 SCC 649<\/a>.<\/i>[S. Ramesh v. Special Director Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad, MP-FE-476\/HYD\/2019(COD) IN FPA-FE-300\/HYD\/2009, decided on 24-12-2019]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Appellate Tribunal (FEMA): Justice G.C. Mishra (Acting Chairman) allowed the application for the condonation of delay in respect to the substitution of <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":214419,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[8991,2552,33051,30719,32319],"class_list":["post-224360","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","tag-appeal","tag-Condonation_of_delay","tag-legal-representatives","tag-section-5-of-limitation-act","tag-sufficient-cause"],"yoast_head":"\nFEMA Appellate Tribunal | Delay of 370 days condoned despite not being convinced of \u2018sufficient cause\u2019 for delay, as dismissal of application would bar examination of merits of appeal | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/22\/fema-appellate-tribunal-delay-of-370-days-condoned-despite-not-being-convinced-of-sufficient-cause-for-delay-as-dismissal-of-application-would-bar-examination-of-merits-of-appeal\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"FEMA Appellate Tribunal | Delay of 370 days condoned despite not being convinced of \u2018sufficient cause\u2019 for delay, as dismissal of application would bar examination of merits of appeal\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Appellate Tribunal (FEMA): Justice G.C. Mishra (Acting Chairman) allowed the application for the condonation of delay in respect to the substitution of\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/22\/fema-appellate-tribunal-delay-of-370-days-condoned-despite-not-being-convinced-of-sufficient-cause-for-delay-as-dismissal-of-application-would-bar-examination-of-merits-of-appeal\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-01-22T05:30:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-UNDER-SAFEMA-ACT.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/22\/fema-appellate-tribunal-delay-of-370-days-condoned-despite-not-being-convinced-of-sufficient-cause-for-delay-as-dismissal-of-application-would-bar-examination-of-merits-of-appeal\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/22\/fema-appellate-tribunal-delay-of-370-days-condoned-despite-not-being-convinced-of-sufficient-cause-for-delay-as-dismissal-of-application-would-bar-examination-of-merits-of-appeal\/\",\"name\":\"FEMA Appellate Tribunal | Delay of 370 days condoned despite not being convinced of \u2018sufficient cause\u2019 for delay, as dismissal of application would bar examination of merits of appeal | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/22\/fema-appellate-tribunal-delay-of-370-days-condoned-despite-not-being-convinced-of-sufficient-cause-for-delay-as-dismissal-of-application-would-bar-examination-of-merits-of-appeal\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/22\/fema-appellate-tribunal-delay-of-370-days-condoned-despite-not-being-convinced-of-sufficient-cause-for-delay-as-dismissal-of-application-would-bar-examination-of-merits-of-appeal\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-UNDER-SAFEMA-ACT.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-01-22T05:30:45+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/22\/fema-appellate-tribunal-delay-of-370-days-condoned-despite-not-being-convinced-of-sufficient-cause-for-delay-as-dismissal-of-application-would-bar-examination-of-merits-of-appeal\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/22\/fema-appellate-tribunal-delay-of-370-days-condoned-despite-not-being-convinced-of-sufficient-cause-for-delay-as-dismissal-of-application-would-bar-examination-of-merits-of-appeal\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/22\/fema-appellate-tribunal-delay-of-370-days-condoned-despite-not-being-convinced-of-sufficient-cause-for-delay-as-dismissal-of-application-would-bar-examination-of-merits-of-appeal\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-UNDER-SAFEMA-ACT.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-UNDER-SAFEMA-ACT.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/22\/fema-appellate-tribunal-delay-of-370-days-condoned-despite-not-being-convinced-of-sufficient-cause-for-delay-as-dismissal-of-application-would-bar-examination-of-merits-of-appeal\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"FEMA Appellate Tribunal | Delay of 370 days condoned despite not being convinced of \u2018sufficient cause\u2019 for delay, as dismissal of application would bar examination of merits of appeal\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"FEMA Appellate Tribunal | Delay of 370 days condoned despite not being convinced of \u2018sufficient cause\u2019 for delay, as dismissal of application would bar examination of merits of appeal | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/22\/fema-appellate-tribunal-delay-of-370-days-condoned-despite-not-being-convinced-of-sufficient-cause-for-delay-as-dismissal-of-application-would-bar-examination-of-merits-of-appeal\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"FEMA Appellate Tribunal | Delay of 370 days condoned despite not being convinced of \u2018sufficient cause\u2019 for delay, as dismissal of application would bar examination of merits of appeal","og_description":"Appellate Tribunal (FEMA): Justice G.C. Mishra (Acting Chairman) allowed the application for the condonation of delay in respect to the substitution of","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/22\/fema-appellate-tribunal-delay-of-370-days-condoned-despite-not-being-convinced-of-sufficient-cause-for-delay-as-dismissal-of-application-would-bar-examination-of-merits-of-appeal\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2020-01-22T05:30:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-UNDER-SAFEMA-ACT.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/22\/fema-appellate-tribunal-delay-of-370-days-condoned-despite-not-being-convinced-of-sufficient-cause-for-delay-as-dismissal-of-application-would-bar-examination-of-merits-of-appeal\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/22\/fema-appellate-tribunal-delay-of-370-days-condoned-despite-not-being-convinced-of-sufficient-cause-for-delay-as-dismissal-of-application-would-bar-examination-of-merits-of-appeal\/","name":"FEMA Appellate Tribunal | Delay of 370 days condoned despite not being convinced of \u2018sufficient cause\u2019 for delay, as dismissal of application would bar examination of merits of appeal | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/22\/fema-appellate-tribunal-delay-of-370-days-condoned-despite-not-being-convinced-of-sufficient-cause-for-delay-as-dismissal-of-application-would-bar-examination-of-merits-of-appeal\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/22\/fema-appellate-tribunal-delay-of-370-days-condoned-despite-not-being-convinced-of-sufficient-cause-for-delay-as-dismissal-of-application-would-bar-examination-of-merits-of-appeal\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-UNDER-SAFEMA-ACT.jpg","datePublished":"2020-01-22T05:30:45+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/22\/fema-appellate-tribunal-delay-of-370-days-condoned-despite-not-being-convinced-of-sufficient-cause-for-delay-as-dismissal-of-application-would-bar-examination-of-merits-of-appeal\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/22\/fema-appellate-tribunal-delay-of-370-days-condoned-despite-not-being-convinced-of-sufficient-cause-for-delay-as-dismissal-of-application-would-bar-examination-of-merits-of-appeal\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/22\/fema-appellate-tribunal-delay-of-370-days-condoned-despite-not-being-convinced-of-sufficient-cause-for-delay-as-dismissal-of-application-would-bar-examination-of-merits-of-appeal\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-UNDER-SAFEMA-ACT.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-UNDER-SAFEMA-ACT.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/22\/fema-appellate-tribunal-delay-of-370-days-condoned-despite-not-being-convinced-of-sufficient-cause-for-delay-as-dismissal-of-application-would-bar-examination-of-merits-of-appeal\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"FEMA Appellate Tribunal | Delay of 370 days condoned despite not being convinced of \u2018sufficient cause\u2019 for delay, as dismissal of application would bar examination of merits of appeal"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-UNDER-SAFEMA-ACT.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":295557,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/28\/nclat-condonation-of-delay-filing-claim-wrong-catergory-no-ground-scc-blog\/","url_meta":{"origin":224360,"position":0},"title":"[Condonation of Delay] Filing of claim under wrong category is not substantial ground for condoning delay: NCLAT","author":"Ritu","date":"June 28, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The NCLAT rejected an application seeking Condonation of Delay of 49 days (about 1 and a half months) on the ground of want of sufficient cause.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"national company law appellate tribunal","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":334471,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/05\/aptel-denies-condonation-delay-ndmc-appeal\/","url_meta":{"origin":224360,"position":1},"title":"APTEL denies condonation of delay in NDMC\u2019s Appeal, finding delay due to administrative inefficiencies as insufficient cause","author":"Apoorva","date":"November 5, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"APTEL said that the sufficient cause to be shown by an applicant, for the delay to be condoned, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, it would not be justified to apply a uniform criterion to determine whether the cause shown is sufficient to condone the delay\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Condonation of delay","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/blog-_30_.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/blog-_30_.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/blog-_30_.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/blog-_30_.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":288833,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/08\/nclt-section7-application-admitted-appeal-nclat-delay-beyond-45-days-lack-of-jurisdiction-ibc-section-61-precedent-scc-blog-legal-news-research\/","url_meta":{"origin":224360,"position":2},"title":"NCLAT cannot condone delay beyond 15 days in appeal due to lack of jurisdiction even if fraud has been played","author":"Ritu","date":"April 8, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal observed that as per S. 61(2) every appeal must be filed within 30 days before the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal has the jurisdiction to extend the period of 15 days if it is satisfied that there is a sufficient cause for not filing\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-458.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-458.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-458.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-458.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":239763,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/27\/chh-hc-legal-position-regarding-condonation-of-delay-discussed-justice-oriented-approach-to-be-followed-by-courts-chhattisgarh\/","url_meta":{"origin":224360,"position":3},"title":"Chh HC | Legal position regarding \u2018condonation of delay\u2019 discussed; Justice oriented approach to be followed by Courts","author":"Editor","date":"November 27, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Chhattisgarh High Court: Sanjay K Agrawal, J.,\u00a0 condoned the delay and set aside the impugned order by adopting a justice-oriented approach in considering the application for condonation of delay The facts of the case are such that the plaintiff's suit was decreed decreeing an amount of Rs 34,400 in his\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":283000,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/03\/financial-creditor-nclt-corporate-detor-cirp-allowed-appeal-application-condonation-of-delay-nclat-ibc-override-limitation-act-tribunal-no-power-dismissed\/","url_meta":{"origin":224360,"position":4},"title":"NCLAT | IBC overrides Limitation Act; Delay beyond period of 45 days cannot be condoned","author":"Editor","date":"February 3, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"While adjudicating an appeal file with a delay of 55 days, the Tribunal held that S. 238 IBC overrides S. 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and therefore this Tribunal does not have power to condone a delay beyond a period of 45 days.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"NCLAT","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-395.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":207127,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/12\/21\/appeal-filed-along-with-application-for-condonation-of-delay-when-dismissed-is-a-decree-within-section-22-cpc\/","url_meta":{"origin":224360,"position":5},"title":"Appeal filed along with application for condonation of delay when dismissed is a decree within Section 2(2) CPC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"December 21, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Orissa High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Dr A.K. Rath, J., dismissed a writ petition challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge, whereby the Appellate Court had dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.\u00a0 The petitioners were aggrieved by this\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224360","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=224360"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224360\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/214419"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=224360"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=224360"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=224360"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}