Supreme Court: Foreign Judgment Unenforceable in India Without Fair Opportunity to Defend  ||  Supreme Court: High Court Cannot Decide Appeal Pending Before Statutory Authority Due to Delay  ||  Supreme Court: SDO Lacks Authority to Change Land Classification under UP Zamindari Abolition Act  ||  Supreme Court: Man Not Liable For Maintenance if DNA Test Proves He is Not the Child’s Father  ||  SC: Prison Must Not Dilute Rights of Disabled Inmates; Oversight Given to High-Powered Panel  ||  Delhi High Court: Judges Would Have to Recuse if Children as Central Govt Counsel is Treated as Bias  ||  Delhi HC: Fresh Tenders Allowed Despite Existing Contracts; Anticipatory Grievances Not Entertained  ||  Delhi High Court: Judges Cannot Respond Publicly; Criticism Must Be Responsible and Evidence-Based  ||  J&K&L High Court: IO Not Bound By FIR; Can Modify Offences in Final Chargesheet U/S 173 CrPC  ||  Supreme Court: Brief Service Breaks Do Not Bar Ad Hoc Employees From Regularisation    

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