<?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>1976 (8) TMI 176 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287210</link>
    <description>An order rejecting a memorandum of appeal after refusal of condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not a decree under Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Where delay is not condoned, the proposed appeal never comes into existence for admission, and the rejection of the memorandum is only incidental. No appeal lies under Order 43, Rule 1; if any remedy is available, it is by revision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Aug 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2020 17:25:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=609163" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (8) TMI 176 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287210</link>
      <description>An order rejecting a memorandum of appeal after refusal of condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not a decree under Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Where delay is not condoned, the proposed appeal never comes into existence for admission, and the rejection of the memorandum is only incidental. No appeal lies under Order 43, Rule 1; if any remedy is available, it is by revision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Aug 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287210</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>