<?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>2009 (9) TMI 575 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112645</link>
    <description>Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 allows an appeal on a question of law within 60 days of communication of the order, with a further period not exceeding 60 days on sufficient cause being shown. The Bombay High Court held that this special limitation scheme, read with section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, expressly excludes any additional enlargement under section 5. The phrase &quot;not exceeding 60 days&quot; was treated as a mandatory outer limit, consistent with the Act&#039;s scheme of speedy disposal by a specialised tribunal and restricted appellate review. Accordingly, delay beyond that extended period cannot be condoned.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149661" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (9) TMI 575 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112645</link>
      <description>Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 allows an appeal on a question of law within 60 days of communication of the order, with a further period not exceeding 60 days on sufficient cause being shown. The Bombay High Court held that this special limitation scheme, read with section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, expressly excludes any additional enlargement under section 5. The phrase &quot;not exceeding 60 days&quot; was treated as a mandatory outer limit, consistent with the Act&#039;s scheme of speedy disposal by a specialised tribunal and restricted appellate review. Accordingly, delay beyond that extended period cannot be condoned.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112645</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>