<?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>2000 (3) TMI 931 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104688</link>
    <description>An appeal under section 25(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 had to be filed within forty-five days from the date a copy of the BIFR order was issued to the aggrieved party, and the appeal memorandum had to be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order. The procedural rules and the appellate authority&#039;s press note required the appellant to apply promptly for the certified copy after the order, rather than rely on receipt through ordinary channels. On that construction, mere possession of an ordinary copy did not satisfy the filing requirement or extend limitation, so the appeal could not be treated as in time without proper compliance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:00:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141727" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (3) TMI 931 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104688</link>
      <description>An appeal under section 25(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 had to be filed within forty-five days from the date a copy of the BIFR order was issued to the aggrieved party, and the appeal memorandum had to be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order. The procedural rules and the appellate authority&#039;s press note required the appellant to apply promptly for the certified copy after the order, rather than rely on receipt through ordinary channels. On that construction, mere possession of an ordinary copy did not satisfy the filing requirement or extend limitation, so the appeal could not be treated as in time without proper compliance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104688</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>