https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335241 The Commissioner, acting as appellate authority under Section 12-D(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, was treated as a statutory appellate authority and not a court in the strict constitutional sense. The Limitation Act did not apply to the appeal merely through Section 29(2), but the principles underlying Section 14 could be used where a party had bona fide and diligently pursued a wrong forum. Because the appellant first approached the writ court promptly after cancellation and then filed the appeal, the delay was attributable to good-faith pursuit of an incorrect remedy. The delay was therefore validly condoned, and the challenge to that condonation failed. en-us Tue, 23 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Jan 2017 13:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335241 The Commissioner, acting as appellate authority under Section 12-D(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, was treated as a statutory appellate authority and not a court in the strict constitutional sense. The Limitation Act did not apply to the appeal merely through Section 29(2), but the principles underlying Section 14 could be used where a party had bona fide and diligently pursued a wrong forum. Because the appellant first approached the writ court promptly after cancellation and then filed the appeal, the delay was attributable to good-faith pursuit of an incorrect remedy. The delay was therefore validly condoned, and the challenge to that condonation failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 23 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335241