The case involves an appeal filed by Mathew Mylakulath Jose against Kizhakkekara Kuriakose Jose, the RP of ITMA Hotels India Pvt Ltd & Anr., before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai Bench. The appeal was filed with a delay of 15 days, and the appellant sought condonation of this delay. The impugned order was passed on 2023-03-29, and the appeal was filed on 2023-05-11, which is the 45th day from the date of the order.
Mathew Mylakulath Jose filed an appeal against Kizhakkekara Kuriakose Jose, RP of ITMA Hotels India Pvt Ltd & Anr. The appeal was filed with a delay of 15 days. The impugned order was passed on March 29, 2023, and the appeal was filed on May 11, 2023, which is the 45th day from the date of the order. The appellant cited reasons for the delay, including being a resident of Kerala, the need to file through a Chennai advocate, difficulties in collating old documents, and the advocate needing two weeks to draft the matter. The NCLAT found these reasons insufficient and dismissed the application for condonation of delay. The relevance of the delay is that the NCLAT has limited power to condone delays, and the appellant exceeded that limit.
Sign in to view the parties.
The order being…
The appeal was filed,…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.
The case involves an appeal filed by Mathew Mylakulath Jose against Kizhakkekara Kuriakose Jose, the RP of ITMA Hotels India Pvt Ltd & Anr., before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai Bench. The appeal was filed with a delay of 15 days, and the appellant sought condonation of this delay. The impugned order was passed on 2023-03-29, and the appeal was filed on 2023-05-11, which is the 45th day from the date of the order.
Mathew Mylakulath Jose filed an appeal against Kizhakkekara Kuriakose Jose, RP of ITMA Hotels India Pvt Ltd & Anr. The appeal was filed with a delay of 15 days. The impugned order was passed on March 29, 2023, and the appeal was filed on May 11, 2023, which is the 45th day from the date of the order. The appellant cited reasons for the delay, including being a resident of Kerala, the need to file through a Chennai advocate, difficulties in collating old documents, and the advocate needing two weeks to draft the matter. The NCLAT found these reasons insufficient and dismissed the application for condonation of delay. The relevance of the delay is that the NCLAT has limited power to condone delays, and the appellant exceeded that limit.
The order being…
The appeal was filed,…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.