The case involves two applications, I.A. No. 8762 of 2024 and I.A. No. 213 of 2025, seeking condonation of delay in refiling Company Appeals (AT)(Ins) No. 2345 of 2024 and No. 73 of 2025, respectively. The delays were 240 and 190 days.
I.A. No. 8762 of 2024 seeks condonation of 240 days delay in refiling Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No. 2345 of 2024.
I.A. No. 213 of 2025 seeks condonation of 190 days delay in refiling Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No. 73 of 2025.
The registry raised defects in the appeals multiple times, with the applicants claiming to have cured them promptly.
The applicants cited the shifting of the counsel's office and the clerk's absence due to childbirth as reasons for the delay.
The respondent argued that the explanations for the delay were vague, unsubstantiated, and insufficient.
The Tribunal found that the defects raised by the registry were largely routine and minor in nature.
…Sign in to view the parties.
Defects were raised by…
The first time raising…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.
The case involves two applications, I.A. No. 8762 of 2024 and I.A. No. 213 of 2025, seeking condonation of delay in refiling Company Appeals (AT)(Ins) No. 2345 of 2024 and No. 73 of 2025, respectively. The delays were 240 and 190 days.
I.A. No. 8762 of 2024 seeks condonation of 240 days delay in refiling Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No. 2345 of 2024.
I.A. No. 213 of 2025 seeks condonation of 190 days delay in refiling Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No. 73 of 2025.
The registry raised defects in the appeals multiple times, with the applicants claiming to have cured them promptly.
The applicants cited the shifting of the counsel's office and the clerk's absence due to childbirth as reasons for the delay.
The respondent argued that the explanations for the delay were vague, unsubstantiated, and insufficient.
The Tribunal found that the defects raised by the registry were largely routine and minor in nature.
…Defects were raised by…
The first time raising…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.