<?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>2008 (12) TMI 447 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124337</link>
    <description>A writ petition should not be declined solely on delay where the explanation for delay is accepted as sufficient and the matter has already been entertained earlier. In such circumstances, delay does not justify denying adjudication on merits. The rejection of the writ petition on limitation grounds was set aside, and the matter was restored to the High Court for decision on merits, subject to payment of costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Aug 2013 16:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=161286" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (12) TMI 447 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124337</link>
      <description>A writ petition should not be declined solely on delay where the explanation for delay is accepted as sufficient and the matter has already been entertained earlier. In such circumstances, delay does not justify denying adjudication on merits. The rejection of the writ petition on limitation grounds was set aside, and the matter was restored to the High Court for decision on merits, subject to payment of costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124337</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>