<?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>2018 (4) TMI 1991 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456722</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Petition seeking to condone a 546-day delay in filing an appeal suit. The petitioner had previously failed to set aside an ex-parte decree through various legal avenues, including a Civil Revision Petition and a Special Leave Petition. The court found the reasons for the delay insufficient and contradictory, noting that similar arguments had been rejected by both the trial court and the Supreme Court. Consequently, the court determined that the petitioner&#039;s reasons for the delay were not acceptable, leading to the dismissal of the petition. Legal precedents cited by the petitioner were deemed inapplicable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Aug 2024 22:42:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=763602" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 1991 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456722</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Petition seeking to condone a 546-day delay in filing an appeal suit. The petitioner had previously failed to set aside an ex-parte decree through various legal avenues, including a Civil Revision Petition and a Special Leave Petition. The court found the reasons for the delay insufficient and contradictory, noting that similar arguments had been rejected by both the trial court and the Supreme Court. Consequently, the court determined that the petitioner&#039;s reasons for the delay were not acceptable, leading to the dismissal of the petition. Legal precedents cited by the petitioner were deemed inapplicable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456722</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>