Calling the Situation Grim, the Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance of Delays in NCLT Approvals  ||  Supreme Court: Admission of a Claim by a Resolution Professional is Not Debt Acknowledgment  ||  Supreme Court: Public Figures Must Exercise Caution as Their Words Have Consequences in Society  ||  SC: State Must Act as a Model Employer, Criticising the Union For Not Regularising ISRO Workers  ||  J&K&L High Court: Minor Minerals Have Major Environmental Impacts and Must be Regulated  ||  Del HC: Unexplained Money Received by Public Servant is Not Bribery Without Proof of Official Favour  ||  Del HC: There is No Absolute Bar on Granting Co-Convicts Parole/Furlough Together in Suitable Cases  ||  Bom HC: LARR Authority Can Examine Limitation Issues in Land Acquisition References under 2013 Act  ||  MP HC: Long-Serving Employees Cannot Be Denied Regularisation by Retrospective Statutory Amendments  ||  J&K&L HC: Routine Challenges to Lok Adalat Awards Defeat Their Purpose of Quick Dispute Resolution    

Sikkim HC: Accused Unable to Engage Counsel Within Requisite Time, Delay of 388 Days Condoned - (28 Jun 2024)

LIMITATION

Sik. HC while condoning delay of 388 days in a matter where accused failed to engage a counsel within time, has observed that delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned in interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction is imputable to party seeking condonation.

Tags : SIKKIM HIGH COURT   CONDONATION OF DELAY   GROSS NEGLIGENCE   DELIBERATE INACTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved