Showing : 91-100 of 498 Results

DELHI HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2015
Details
Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5-- Condonation of delay - Delay of 14 days in filing intra-Court appeal - Period of limitation prescribed u/art 117 of Limitation Act for filing intra-Court appeal is 30 days - Explanation given for delay of 14 days is reasonable and sufficient for condoning delay - Alleged delay of 14 days is not so..........
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Year of decision: 2015
Details
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Section 18(2), Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, Section 20(3)-- Appeal - Condonation of delay - Period of limitation for filing appeal u/s 18 of SARFAESI Act is 30 days as against 45 days u/s 20 of RDB Act - However, there is no express provision of condonation of delay in SARFAESI Act but S.18(2) of SARFAESI Act adopts and incorporates the provisions of RDB..........
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Year of decision: 2015
Details
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Section 18(2), Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, Section 20(3), Limitation Act, 1963, Section 29(2)-- Appeal - Condonation of delay - S.29(2) of Limitation Act has no absolute application to SARFAESI Act as it impliedly excludes applicability of provisions of Limitation Act to the extent a different scheme is adopted...........
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Year of decision: 2015
Details
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Section 18(2), Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, Section 20(3), Limitation Act, 1963, Section 29(2)-- Appeal - Condonation of delay - Question as to whether Appellate Tribunal under SARFAESI Act was a Court for the purposes of S.29(2) of Limitation Act, is not required to be decided as S.29(2) Limitation Act is not applicable to SARFAESI Act - Even if S.29(2) of Limitation Act does not apply to..........
HYDERABAD HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2015
Details
Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5-- Condonation of delay - Delay of 789 days in filing appeal - Sufficient cause - Explanation offered by petitioner that on account of his migration to other State he could not meet his counsel within time and failed to file the appeal is not bona fide - More so, participation of petitioner in final..........
HYDERABAD HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2015
Details
Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5-- Condonation of delay - Lack of funds to file an appeal engaging the counsel is not a ground to condone the delay...........
HYDERABAD HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2015
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 41, Rule 3A, Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5-- Appeal - Condonation of delay - Delay of 168 days in filing appeal - No sufficient cause mentioned in the affidavit regarding delay except making bald unsubstantiated allegation - Basing on lame excuse or unsubstantiated cause, it is difficult to condone delay - Delay not condoned - Application..........
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2015
Details
Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5-- Condonation of delay - If appeal was decided on merits without any specific order condoning delay, delay must be deemed to have been condoned...........
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2015
Details
Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5-- Condonation of delay - While considering delay condonation application, Court has to see the merit of case also as law of limitation is not meant to take away the right of appeal - Courts are meant for imparting substantial justice and not to scuttle the justice on technicalities - Length of delay..........
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2015
Details
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 372-- Appeal against acquittal by victim - Limitation - No limitation is provided for filing appeal against acquittal by victim as S.372 Proviso Cr.P.C. and Art.114 of Limitation Act is silent - However, such an appeal should be filed within reasonable time - But it would not be appropriate to hold that..........

Showing : 91-100 of 498 Results