<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1995 (11) TMI 142 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84589</link>
    <description>Condonation of delay is procedural, so no vested right survives to seek unlimited extension under the earlier regime. An appeal arising under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was governed by the law in force on the date of the order and appeal, not the law when proceedings began; accordingly, the amended provision limiting condonation to a further 45 days applied. The plea of vested right was rejected and the time-bar dismissal was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2011 18:42:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121733" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (11) TMI 142 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84589</link>
      <description>Condonation of delay is procedural, so no vested right survives to seek unlimited extension under the earlier regime. An appeal arising under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was governed by the law in force on the date of the order and appeal, not the law when proceedings began; accordingly, the amended provision limiting condonation to a further 45 days applied. The plea of vested right was rejected and the time-bar dismissal was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84589</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>