<?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>2019 (12) TMI 1293 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287627</link>
    <description>Condonation of a 916-day delay in filing a letters patent appeal depended on proof of sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Although a liberal approach may advance substantial justice, the Court stressed that condonation is not automatic where the explanation is inadequate and laches are apparent. Internal consultations, vacancy in the Vice-Chancellor&#039;s office, and consideration by university bodies did not satisfactorily account for the delay at each stage. The Court also noted the prior delay and laches in the writ petition, the public nature of the land-use change and development, and the prejudice to the respondent and public interest. The delay was not condoned and dismissal of the appeal on that ground was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Jan 2025 11:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=611035" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (12) TMI 1293 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287627</link>
      <description>Condonation of a 916-day delay in filing a letters patent appeal depended on proof of sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Although a liberal approach may advance substantial justice, the Court stressed that condonation is not automatic where the explanation is inadequate and laches are apparent. Internal consultations, vacancy in the Vice-Chancellor&#039;s office, and consideration by university bodies did not satisfactorily account for the delay at each stage. The Court also noted the prior delay and laches in the writ petition, the public nature of the land-use change and development, and the prejudice to the respondent and public interest. The delay was not condoned and dismissal of the appeal on that ground was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287627</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>