<?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>1996 (5) TMI 438 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282057</link>
    <description>Sufficient cause for condoning delay under the Limitation Act requires a satisfactory explanation for the entire period of default. Medical material showing hospitalisation and surgery did not establish sufficient cause where the party retained adequate opportunity to instruct counsel and file the appeal. Applying for certified copies after expiry of the appeal period, coupled with no adequate explanation for the further delay after copies became available, left the delay unexplained. Revisional jurisdiction permits interference only for illegality or material irregularity in exercising jurisdiction, not because a different view of sufficient cause is possible. The refusal to condone delay therefore disclosed no revisional error.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Jul 2019 18:05:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=580135" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (5) TMI 438 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282057</link>
      <description>Sufficient cause for condoning delay under the Limitation Act requires a satisfactory explanation for the entire period of default. Medical material showing hospitalisation and surgery did not establish sufficient cause where the party retained adequate opportunity to instruct counsel and file the appeal. Applying for certified copies after expiry of the appeal period, coupled with no adequate explanation for the further delay after copies became available, left the delay unexplained. Revisional jurisdiction permits interference only for illegality or material irregularity in exercising jurisdiction, not because a different view of sufficient cause is possible. The refusal to condone delay therefore disclosed no revisional error.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282057</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>