<?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>Appeal dismissed for inordinate delay; condonation denied for failure to show sufficient cause, laches and negligence</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91811</link>
    <description>The HC dismissed the appeal in a money-laundering matter, upholding the impugned order refusing condonation of delay in filing appeals against provisional attachment. The court held that condonation requires demonstration of &quot;sufficient cause,&quot; absence of negligence and bona fide prosecution; mere medical ailments did not satisfactorily excuse the inordinate delay. Exercising judicial discretion, the HC found the appellant&#039;s explanation deficient, concluding there was laches and lack of due diligence in prosecuting the remedy. Consequently, the HC declined interference with the lower order and dismissed the appeal for want of timely filing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2025 08:33:07 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2025 08:33:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=845125" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Appeal dismissed for inordinate delay; condonation denied for failure to show sufficient cause, laches and negligence</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91811</link>
      <description>The HC dismissed the appeal in a money-laundering matter, upholding the impugned order refusing condonation of delay in filing appeals against provisional attachment. The court held that condonation requires demonstration of &quot;sufficient cause,&quot; absence of negligence and bona fide prosecution; mere medical ailments did not satisfactorily excuse the inordinate delay. Exercising judicial discretion, the HC found the appellant&#039;s explanation deficient, concluding there was laches and lack of due diligence in prosecuting the remedy. Consequently, the HC declined interference with the lower order and dismissed the appeal for want of timely filing.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2025 08:33:07 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91811</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>