<?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>2015 (6) TMI 498 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260573</link>
    <description>A special statute prescribing a 45-day appeal period with condonation only for a further 15 days excludes the general condonation power under the Limitation Act. Once the legislature fixes an express outer limit, the appellate authority cannot extend time beyond that limit, because Section 5 would nullify the statutory restriction. The text also states that writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 cannot be used to enlarge a time-barred appeal or direct merits hearing contrary to the limitation scheme. The stated effect is that the appeal remained barred by limitation and the contrary earlier view was overruled.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=387734" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (6) TMI 498 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260573</link>
      <description>A special statute prescribing a 45-day appeal period with condonation only for a further 15 days excludes the general condonation power under the Limitation Act. Once the legislature fixes an express outer limit, the appellate authority cannot extend time beyond that limit, because Section 5 would nullify the statutory restriction. The text also states that writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 cannot be used to enlarge a time-barred appeal or direct merits hearing contrary to the limitation scheme. The stated effect is that the appeal remained barred by limitation and the contrary earlier view was overruled.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260573</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>