Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
241 to 260 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Time Limitation - Curable Defect - Electronic Filing Compliance - Procedural Compliances vs. Substantive Rights: - The High Court found that the petitioners complied with the e-filing requirements, evidenced by the generation of an e-filing number. This compliance, despite the subsequent procedural deficiency, was considered as filing within the limitation period. The "Document not serial" error, a result of technical failures, was deemed a curable defect. Importantly, the Court opined that procedural compliances, including those encountered in the e-filing process, should not defeat the substantive rights of the parties. The essence of the ruling was that technical glitches should not bar access to legal remedies, particularly when the initial attempt to file was made within the prescribed limitation period.
Time Limitation - Curable Defect - Electronic Filing Compliance - Procedural Compliances vs. Substantive Rights: - The High Court found that the petitioners complied with the e-filing requirements, evidenced by the generation of an e-filing number. This compliance, despite the subsequent procedural deficiency, was considered as filing within the limitation period. The "Document not serial" error, a result of technical failures, was deemed a curable defect. Importantly, the Court opined that procedural compliances, including those encountered in the e-filing process, should not defeat the substantive rights of the parties. The essence of the ruling was that technical glitches should not bar access to legal remedies, particularly when the initial attempt to file was made within the prescribed limitation period.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.