<?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>High Court&#039;s decision to condone 721-day appeal delay due to advocate&#039;s oversight challenged for insufficient justification.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=44693</link>
    <description>Condonation of delay of 721 days in filing appeal - explanation offered in support of condonation of delay was that the then advocate had not informed the respondent about the disposal of suit - The delay ought not to have been condoned by the High Court</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2019 07:40:24 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2019 07:40:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=559796" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>High Court&#039;s decision to condone 721-day appeal delay due to advocate&#039;s oversight challenged for insufficient justification.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=44693</link>
      <description>Condonation of delay of 721 days in filing appeal - explanation offered in support of condonation of delay was that the then advocate had not informed the respondent about the disposal of suit - The delay ought not to have been condoned by the High Court</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2019 07:40:24 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=44693</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>