https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292237 Delay in filing the appeal was condoned because the appellant had first pursued a review remedy with due diligence and in good faith. The court treated the time spent in that proceeding as excludable on the principle underlying Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, while assessing sufficient cause under Section 5. The review arose from the same cause of action, was heard on merits with notice to the opposite party, and failed on a ground akin to defect of jurisdiction because it was found not maintainable on the grounds urged. Liberal construction of sufficient cause therefore supported exclusion of the review period and condonation of delay. en-us Mon, 17 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Apr 2023 17:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292237 Delay in filing the appeal was condoned because the appellant had first pursued a review remedy with due diligence and in good faith. The court treated the time spent in that proceeding as excludable on the principle underlying Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, while assessing sufficient cause under Section 5. The review arose from the same cause of action, was heard on merits with notice to the opposite party, and failed on a ground akin to defect of jurisdiction because it was found not maintainable on the grounds urged. Liberal construction of sufficient cause therefore supported exclusion of the review period and condonation of delay. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 17 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292237