<?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 (11) TMI 475 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292235</link>
    <description>Where review petitions against a Single Judge&#039;s judgment were validly entertained and decided, the period from the original judgment until disposal of the reviews had to be excluded for computing limitation for the Letters Patent appeals. On that computation, the appeals were within time; in any event, the delay was sufficiently explained. The High Court was therefore required to entertain the appeals and decide them on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2020 12:32:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=630185" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (11) TMI 475 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292235</link>
      <description>Where review petitions against a Single Judge&#039;s judgment were validly entertained and decided, the period from the original judgment until disposal of the reviews had to be excluded for computing limitation for the Letters Patent appeals. On that computation, the appeals were within time; in any event, the delay was sufficiently explained. The High Court was therefore required to entertain the appeals and decide them on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292235</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>