<?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 (3) TMI 249 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289083</link>
    <description>Delay in filing a fresh motor accident claim petition may be condoned where sufficient cause is shown and the court applies a liberal, justice-oriented approach. The text explains that the discretion must consider the claimant&#039;s status, background, reasons for delay, conduct of the parties, prior litigation history, and the quality of legal advice received. On the facts described, the claimant&#039;s illiteracy, tribal background, earlier timely filing, and the pendency and withdrawal of the first petition substantially explained the delay; the remaining delay was said to have been misread by the Tribunal through an unduly strict assessment of the affidavit and evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2020 15:49:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=617359" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (3) TMI 249 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289083</link>
      <description>Delay in filing a fresh motor accident claim petition may be condoned where sufficient cause is shown and the court applies a liberal, justice-oriented approach. The text explains that the discretion must consider the claimant&#039;s status, background, reasons for delay, conduct of the parties, prior litigation history, and the quality of legal advice received. On the facts described, the claimant&#039;s illiteracy, tribal background, earlier timely filing, and the pendency and withdrawal of the first petition substantially explained the delay; the remaining delay was said to have been misread by the Tribunal through an unduly strict assessment of the affidavit and evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289083</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>