TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal Dismissed After 688-Day Delay; Court Finds No Justifiable Reason for Late Filing, Upholds Limitation Bar.</h1> The HC dismissed the appeal due to a 688-day delay in filing, rejecting the application for condonation of delay. The appellant, having been proceeded ... Condonation of delay of 688 days in filing the appeal - Sufficient reasons for delay or not - no care was taken to file appeal or even to get it set aside by availing appropriate remedy promptly or even within a reasonable time - appellant stated that it has a very strong case on merits and, therefore, the appellant be not non suited only on the ground of delay - HELD THAT:- The submissions are not satisfactory and convincing - The delay in filing the appeal is too long without any cause much less sufficient for adopting liberal approach also. In the absence of any cause shown, delay cannot be condoned. Therefore, the application is rejected. The appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation. Issues involved: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal, dismissal of appeal due to delayOn the issue of condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the High Court observed that the application lacked material to condone the delay. The appellant was proceeded ex-parte, indicating that they were duly served but chose not to participate in the proceedings. Despite the order being passed on 16.02.2018, no steps were taken by the appellant to file the appeal or seek appropriate remedy within a reasonable time, which was highlighted as six months. The appeal was filed after a delay of 688 days, and the Court noted that the association, being not a rustic villager, could not seek indulgence based on the grounds presented in the application for condonation of delay.Regarding the dismissal of the appeal due to the delay, the appellant's counsel argued that they had a strong case on merits and should not be non-suited solely on the ground of delay. However, the Court was not swayed by this argument, emphasizing that the delay was significant and lacked any justifiable cause for a liberal approach. In the absence of any valid reason shown, the Court rejected the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
