https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240609 Condonation of a 5-1/2 year delay in land acquisition appeals required a bona fide, satisfactory explanation showing sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act; illness of one appellant, without more, did not meet that standard. Negligence, inaction, lack of diligence, and want of bona fides defeat such relief, so the delay was not condoned and the appeals remained time-barred. Parity with earlier orders could not assist the appellants because Article 14 does not permit negative equality or repetition of an erroneous condonation order in another case. The challenge to the refusal to condone delay therefore failed. en-us Thu, 22 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 May 2026 17:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240609 Condonation of a 5-1/2 year delay in land acquisition appeals required a bona fide, satisfactory explanation showing sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act; illness of one appellant, without more, did not meet that standard. Negligence, inaction, lack of diligence, and want of bona fides defeat such relief, so the delay was not condoned and the appeals remained time-barred. Parity with earlier orders could not assist the appellants because Article 14 does not permit negative equality or repetition of an erroneous condonation order in another case. The challenge to the refusal to condone delay therefore failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 22 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240609