<?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>1979 (4) TMI 29 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40008</link>
    <description>A bona fide mistake by counsel may constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act where the error is honestly made and not tainted by mala fides, recklessness, or abuse of process. The text also states that interference under article 136 is exceptional and requires manifest injustice, gross misappreciation, or perversity; on the material described, the merits did not justify such intervention and special leave was not warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2014 09:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=78554" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (4) TMI 29 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40008</link>
      <description>A bona fide mistake by counsel may constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act where the error is honestly made and not tainted by mala fides, recklessness, or abuse of process. The text also states that interference under article 136 is exceptional and requires manifest injustice, gross misappreciation, or perversity; on the material described, the merits did not justify such intervention and special leave was not warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40008</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>