https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160082 SC held that the HC erred in condoning a 565-day delay, failing to consider the appellant's reply and accepting no reasonable explanation from the respondent State. The Court emphasized that statutory limitation must be applied strictly and equity cannot extend prescribed periods. The HC's exercise of discretion was improper and its order condoning delay was set aside. The application for condonation in the HC is rejected and the appeal is dismissed as barred by time. en-us Fri, 19 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Oct 2025 13:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160082 SC held that the HC erred in condoning a 565-day delay, failing to consider the appellant's reply and accepting no reasonable explanation from the respondent State. The Court emphasized that statutory limitation must be applied strictly and equity cannot extend prescribed periods. The HC's exercise of discretion was improper and its order condoning delay was set aside. The application for condonation in the HC is rejected and the appeal is dismissed as barred by time. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 19 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160082