<?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>1978 (3) TMI 214 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275583</link>
    <description>Delay in filing the appeal could be condoned where the appellant had bona fide prosecuted a pending review application and acted with reasonable diligence. The period spent in pursuing that proper remedy was relevant to sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and exclusion of that time could bring the appeal within limitation. The refusal to condone delay was set aside, and the delay petition was remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Mar 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Oct 2018 11:40:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=537583" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (3) TMI 214 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275583</link>
      <description>Delay in filing the appeal could be condoned where the appellant had bona fide prosecuted a pending review application and acted with reasonable diligence. The period spent in pursuing that proper remedy was relevant to sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and exclusion of that time could bring the appeal within limitation. The refusal to condone delay was set aside, and the delay petition was remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Mar 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275583</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>