Karnataka HC: A Neighbour Cannot be Charged With Matrimonial Cruelty under Section 498A IPC  ||  Revisional Power U/S 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act is Supervisory; HC Cannot Revisit Facts  ||  Poverty Cannot Bar Parole; Rajasthan HC Waives Surety For Indigent Life Convict, Sets Guidelines  ||  Delhi High Court: Late Payment of TDS Does Not Absolve Criminal Liability under the Income Tax Act  ||  NCLT Kochi: Avoidance Provisions under Insolvency Code Aim to Restore, Not Punish, Parties  ||  Bombay High Court: In IBC Cases, High Courts Lack Parallel Contempt Jurisdiction over the NCLT  ||  Supreme Court: Concluded Auction Cannot Be Cancelled Merely To Invite Higher Bids at a Later Stage  ||  SC: In Customs Classification, Statutory Tariff Headings and HSN Notes Prevail over Common Parlance  ||  SC: Under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, Notice U/S 10(5) Must be Served on the Person in Possession  ||  Supreme Court: Only Courts May Condone Delay; Tribunals Lack Power Unless Statute Allows    

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