<?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>1964 (10) TMI 114 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302186</link>
    <description>Delay in presenting an appeal may be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act where the appellant initially filed in the wrong forum under a bona fide mistake and acted with reasonable diligence. The expression &quot;sufficient cause&quot; is to be construed liberally to advance substantial justice, especially where there is no negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides. Circumstances akin to prosecution in the wrong court may be relevant in assessing sufficient cause, with the equitable considerations underlying Section 14 informing the Section 5 inquiry. On that approach, refusal to condone delay was not justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 May 2022 15:19:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=678552" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (10) TMI 114 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302186</link>
      <description>Delay in presenting an appeal may be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act where the appellant initially filed in the wrong forum under a bona fide mistake and acted with reasonable diligence. The expression &quot;sufficient cause&quot; is to be construed liberally to advance substantial justice, especially where there is no negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides. Circumstances akin to prosecution in the wrong court may be relevant in assessing sufficient cause, with the equitable considerations underlying Section 14 informing the Section 5 inquiry. On that approach, refusal to condone delay was not justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302186</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>