<?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>1987 (2) TMI 61 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40082</link>
    <description>The expression &quot;sufficient cause&quot; in limitation law must be construed liberally and pragmatically to advance substantial justice, so that meritorious matters are not rejected on technical delay. The same standard applies to the State as a litigant, and no stricter test is warranted merely because the applicant is the State. On the facts, the delay was sufficiently explained, so the delay was condoned and the time-bar dismissal was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 May 2025 11:10:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=78627" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (2) TMI 61 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40082</link>
      <description>The expression &quot;sufficient cause&quot; in limitation law must be construed liberally and pragmatically to advance substantial justice, so that meritorious matters are not rejected on technical delay. The same standard applies to the State as a litigant, and no stricter test is warranted merely because the applicant is the State. On the facts, the delay was sufficiently explained, so the delay was condoned and the time-bar dismissal was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40082</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>