<?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>2022 (4) TMI 1422 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303303</link>
    <description>Restoration of a matter dismissed for default must be sought within thirty days, and an application filed beyond that period requires a separate prayer for condonation of delay. Where the record showed earlier knowledge of dismissal through service and appearance in execution proceedings, the later restoration applications could not be treated as made within time or supported by sufficient cause. The court also rejected a lenient approach based only on the respondent being a government undertaking, noting contradictions in its version and the absence of a proper explanation. In supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, the restoration order was set aside for ignoring material facts and acting with patent perversity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2022 20:31:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=684814" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (4) TMI 1422 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303303</link>
      <description>Restoration of a matter dismissed for default must be sought within thirty days, and an application filed beyond that period requires a separate prayer for condonation of delay. Where the record showed earlier knowledge of dismissal through service and appearance in execution proceedings, the later restoration applications could not be treated as made within time or supported by sufficient cause. The court also rejected a lenient approach based only on the respondent being a government undertaking, noting contradictions in its version and the absence of a proper explanation. In supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, the restoration order was set aside for ignoring material facts and acting with patent perversity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303303</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>