J&K&L HC: Matrimonial Remedies May Overlap, But Cruelty Claims Cannot be Selectively Invoked  ||  Delhi High Court: Customs Officials Acting Officially Cannot be Cross-Examined as of Right  ||  J&K&L HC: Second Arbitral Reference is Maintainable if Award is Set Aside Without Deciding Merits  ||  J&K&L HC: Gold Voluntarily Given to Customer is 'Entrustment'; Theft Excluded from Insurance Cover  ||  Delhi HC: Working Mothers Cannot be Forced to Bear Full Childcare Burden While Fathers Evade Duty  ||  J&K&L HC: Arbitral Tribunal Not a “Court”; Giving False Evidence Before it Doesn’t Attract S.195 CrPC  ||  Calcutta HC: Award May Be Set Aside if Tribunal Rewrites Contract or Ignores Key Clauses  ||  Delhi HC Suspends Kuldeep Singh Sengar’s Life Term, Holding Section 5(C) of POCSO Not Made Out  ||  Calcutta High Court: Arbitration Clause in an Expired Lease Cannot be Invoked For a Fresh Lease  ||  Delhi High Court: 120-Day Timeline under Section 132B Of Income Tax Act is Not Mandatory    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved