ITAT sets aside CIT(A) order for dismissing appeal on delay grounds, remands case for fresh consideration with opportunity to file condonation application.
Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that appellate authorities must consider condonation of delay applications before rejecting appeals, reinforcing procedural fairness under Section 5 of Limitation Act.
Kerala High Court dismisses petition to condone 514-day delay in challenging ex parte award, holding that false claims of non-receipt nullify any claim of sufficient cause.
Chhattisgarh High Court rejects condonation of 73-day delay in appealing acquittal, holding bureaucratic delays insufficient under Limitation Act. Key precedent on state accountability.
Madhya Pradesh High Court stays ex parte divorce decree obtained by evading service, holding that remarriage pending appeal violates natural justice and equity.
Chhattisgarh High Court holds that delay in filing criminal revision must be explained by events occurring within the limitation period; mere financial hardship or counsel's advice is insufficient.
Bombay High Court holds that a one-day delay in filing a Section 138 NI Act complaint cannot be condoned without a formal application, reinforcing mandatory statutory timelines.
Madras High Court condones 231-day delay in filing Section 34 petition under Arbitration Act, emphasizing commercial litigation standards and conditional relief.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that delay in filing an appeal may be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act if the same decree is already subjudice in another appeal, even without sufficient cause.
ITAT Delhi condones 648-day delay in filing appeal due to non-attributable failure by assessee, emphasizing procedural fairness and substantial justice under the Income Tax Act.
Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that a prayer to bring legal representatives on record inherently seeks to set aside abatement, reinforcing justice-oriented interpretation of Order 22 Rule 9 CPC.
Chhattisgarh High Court holds that ignorance of limitation periods or legal procedures cannot justify inordinate delay in filing criminal revisions, reinforcing strict application of limitation laws.
Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that delay in filing Section 34 application cannot be penalized when absence is due to counsel's default and party had no notice of dismissal.
Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that courts must issue notice to all respondents before rejecting condonation of delay applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Madras High Court refuses to condone 301-day delay in filing writ appeal, holding that bureaucratic inertia is not sufficient cause under Limitation Act.