<?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>1980 (2) TMI 270 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193645</link>
    <description>A delayed application for leave to appeal was not accepted where the governing rule required the request to be made orally before or at the time of judgment, and no sufficient cause was shown for making it about 14 days later. The court noted that delay may be condoned in appropriate cases, such as bona fide mistake or court-related circumstances, but found no such explanation on the facts, so the certificate was liable to be revoked. It also held that an appeal must be presented by a duly authorised person; because the special appeal had been filed without written authority from the appellants, it was incompetent. Both preliminary objections were upheld and the special appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2017 16:35:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=485193" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (2) TMI 270 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193645</link>
      <description>A delayed application for leave to appeal was not accepted where the governing rule required the request to be made orally before or at the time of judgment, and no sufficient cause was shown for making it about 14 days later. The court noted that delay may be condoned in appropriate cases, such as bona fide mistake or court-related circumstances, but found no such explanation on the facts, so the certificate was liable to be revoked. It also held that an appeal must be presented by a duly authorised person; because the special appeal had been filed without written authority from the appellants, it was incompetent. Both preliminary objections were upheld and the special appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193645</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>