<?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>2009 (1) TMI 931 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299491</link>
    <description>Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to an application under section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 because section 378(5) does not expressly exclude it. The article notes that, in line with earlier decisions, the absence of express exclusion allows condonation of delay on sufficient cause. Applying that approach, a seventeen-day delay supported by illness was accepted on a liberal, justice-oriented assessment, and the delay was condoned.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Dec 2021 17:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=664180" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 931 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299491</link>
      <description>Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to an application under section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 because section 378(5) does not expressly exclude it. The article notes that, in line with earlier decisions, the absence of express exclusion allows condonation of delay on sufficient cause. Applying that approach, a seventeen-day delay supported by illness was accepted on a liberal, justice-oriented assessment, and the delay was condoned.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299491</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>