<?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>2020 (10) TMI 1335 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303677</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court, in a judgment by Mr. Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Mr. Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ., addressed a case involving delay in filing a petition, lack of authority of the petitioner&#039;s officer, seeking a certificate of dismissal, and imposition of costs. The Court did not condone the delay in filing the petition, rejected the officer&#039;s unauthorized statement, highlighted issues with seeking dismissal certificates, and imposed a nominal cost on the State Government. The Court directed recovery of costs from the responsible officer and warned of contempt proceedings for non-compliance, ultimately dismissing the Special Leave Petitions due to delay.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2022 20:31:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=687123" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (10) TMI 1335 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303677</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court, in a judgment by Mr. Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Mr. Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ., addressed a case involving delay in filing a petition, lack of authority of the petitioner&#039;s officer, seeking a certificate of dismissal, and imposition of costs. The Court did not condone the delay in filing the petition, rejected the officer&#039;s unauthorized statement, highlighted issues with seeking dismissal certificates, and imposed a nominal cost on the State Government. The Court directed recovery of costs from the responsible officer and warned of contempt proceedings for non-compliance, ultimately dismissing the Special Leave Petitions due to delay.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303677</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>