https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98611 Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was treated as applicable to a misfeasance application governed by the special limitation provisions in section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 and section 45-O(2) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 because those enactments did not expressly exclude it, and section 29(2) therefore applied. However, the liquidator's explanation for delay, based on a mistaken construction of section 458A of the Companies Act, was not accepted as sufficient cause, since a self-construction of the statute without due care and attention did not justify condonation. The condonation request failed and the misfeasance application remained time-barred. en-us Tue, 19 Nov 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Jan 2012 12:56:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98611 Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was treated as applicable to a misfeasance application governed by the special limitation provisions in section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 and section 45-O(2) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 because those enactments did not expressly exclude it, and section 29(2) therefore applied. However, the liquidator's explanation for delay, based on a mistaken construction of section 458A of the Companies Act, was not accepted as sufficient cause, since a self-construction of the statute without due care and attention did not justify condonation. The condonation request failed and the misfeasance application remained time-barred. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 19 Nov 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98611