<?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>1961 (2) TMI 60 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168558</link>
    <description>Sections 148 and 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are enabling provisions of wide amplitude and permit enlargement of time for payment of deficit court fee even after the original period has expired, if sufficient cause is shown. A peremptory order fixing time is intended to secure prompt compliance and is ordinarily in terrorem, but it does not by itself extinguish the court&#039;s jurisdiction to grant extension where justice requires it. The inherent power under Section 151 may also be invoked in appropriate cases. The High Court&#039;s view that it lacked power to extend time after treating the appeal as dismissed was erroneous, and relief could still be granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2015 13:05:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=378497" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1961 (2) TMI 60 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168558</link>
      <description>Sections 148 and 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are enabling provisions of wide amplitude and permit enlargement of time for payment of deficit court fee even after the original period has expired, if sufficient cause is shown. A peremptory order fixing time is intended to secure prompt compliance and is ordinarily in terrorem, but it does not by itself extinguish the court&#039;s jurisdiction to grant extension where justice requires it. The inherent power under Section 151 may also be invoked in appropriate cases. The High Court&#039;s view that it lacked power to extend time after treating the appeal as dismissed was erroneous, and relief could still be granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168558</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>