https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286064 Mistaken legal advice will justify condonation of delay or exclusion of time only if it is shown to have been given bona fide after due care, with a disclosed basis for the error and a satisfactory explanation for the period of inaction. The Delhi HC found that the affidavit of counsel did not explain why incorrect advice was given, did not answer the Registry's objection that appeal was the proper remedy, and left the intervening delay unexplained after the petition was returned and before refiling. Relief under Section 5 and Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was therefore denied, and the refusal to condone delay remained undisturbed. en-us Tue, 06 May 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Feb 2020 14:10:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286064 Mistaken legal advice will justify condonation of delay or exclusion of time only if it is shown to have been given bona fide after due care, with a disclosed basis for the error and a satisfactory explanation for the period of inaction. The Delhi HC found that the affidavit of counsel did not explain why incorrect advice was given, did not answer the Registry's objection that appeal was the proper remedy, and left the intervening delay unexplained after the petition was returned and before refiling. Relief under Section 5 and Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was therefore denied, and the refusal to condone delay remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 06 May 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286064