<?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>2012 (3) TMI 724 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313868</link>
    <description>The SC set aside the impugned order dismissing the application for condonation of a 53-day delay in filing a Review Petition. The SC emphasized that the delay was not exorbitant and should have been condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The matter was remitted for hearing on merits, instructing parties to appear before the learned Single Judge for further proceedings. The SC criticized addressing case merits in delay condonation applications, advocating for a liberal interpretation of &quot;sufficient cause&quot; to advance substantial justice. The delay was satisfactorily explained, and no malafide intent was proven.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 May 2024 14:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=752180" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (3) TMI 724 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313868</link>
      <description>The SC set aside the impugned order dismissing the application for condonation of a 53-day delay in filing a Review Petition. The SC emphasized that the delay was not exorbitant and should have been condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The matter was remitted for hearing on merits, instructing parties to appear before the learned Single Judge for further proceedings. The SC criticized addressing case merits in delay condonation applications, advocating for a liberal interpretation of &quot;sufficient cause&quot; to advance substantial justice. The delay was satisfactorily explained, and no malafide intent was proven.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313868</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>