https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277871 Legal representatives of a deceased appellant who acted promptly after learning of the pending appeal were entitled to substitution and condonation of delay where the delay was satisfactorily explained and there was no inaction or negligence. A technical refusal of substitution was held unjustified. The subsequent applications were also not barred by res judicata because the earlier rejection was only on technical grounds and did not amount to a final adjudication of the substantive relief sought. The appeal was allowed, the refusals of substitution and connected reliefs were set aside, and the pending appeal was remitted for decision on merits. en-us Mon, 16 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Dec 2018 15:34:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277871 Legal representatives of a deceased appellant who acted promptly after learning of the pending appeal were entitled to substitution and condonation of delay where the delay was satisfactorily explained and there was no inaction or negligence. A technical refusal of substitution was held unjustified. The subsequent applications were also not barred by res judicata because the earlier rejection was only on technical grounds and did not amount to a final adjudication of the substantive relief sought. The appeal was allowed, the refusals of substitution and connected reliefs were set aside, and the pending appeal was remitted for decision on merits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 16 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277871