SC: ‘Abandonment of Service is Not Voluntary Retirement’, Denying SBI Clerk Pension Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Stranger Affected by an Interim Order is Entitled to be Impleaded in Writ Proceedings  ||  Supreme Court: Courts Cannot Replace an Authority’s Discretion, and Sets Aside Direction to Governor  ||  SC: Title Suit Hit by Constructive Res Judicata if Omitted in Prior Injunction Suit Disputing Title  ||  SC Clarifies Whether a Co-Operative Society Can Act as a Resolution Applicant under the IBC  ||  Chhattisgarh High Court: Innocent Litigants Should Not be Penalized For Lapses by Their Lawyers  ||  Delhi High Court: Marriage With the Victim Cannot Absolve an Accused of Rape under POCSO  ||  J&K&L HC: Acquisition Lapses if 80% Compensation is Unpaid Before Possession under Section 17A  ||  Delhi HC: Policy Number is Not Mandatory For LIC Details under RTI, But Basic Details are Required  ||  SC: Courts Must Curb Unlicensed Money Lenders; Probes Need Not Wait For New Law    

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