M.AS. (COND.) NOS. 393/LB TO 397/LB, M.AS. NOS. 398/LB TO 402/LB OF 2005, DECIDED ON 24TH SEPTEMBER, versus M.AS. (COND.) NOS. 393/LB TO 397/LB, M.AS. NOS. 398/LB TO 402/LB OF 2005, DECIDED ON 24TH SEPTEMBER,
Delays in Articles 134 (4) and 156 of the Appeal Tribunal were filed by various petitions seeking justification of the delay. The important appeals / matters were deemed valid and no petition for consolation was submitted. An affidavit was filed in support. The appeal of the appellate tribunal was filed following the delay of the confirmation of the disputed requests at the hearing of the original appeals under which the appeals were dismissed as the appeals were filed late, the appellate tribunal functioning after the appeals were rejected. Had become Sorry, and could not re-examine this matter. Filing of miscellaneous requests for delay justification after dealing with important appeals / issues was ignored \ r \ n \ r \ n
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
