https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764719 A special statute prescribing an appeal period under Section 74 of the 2013 land acquisition law was treated as having its own limitation regime, so Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act did not prevent that statute from operating as special law for limitation purposes. The proviso allowing a further period of sixty days on sufficient cause was held to be an express exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act beyond the outer limit. Once that statutory limit expired, delay could not be condoned and the appeal became time-barred. en-us Tue, 07 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Jan 2025 08:45:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764719 A special statute prescribing an appeal period under Section 74 of the 2013 land acquisition law was treated as having its own limitation regime, so Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act did not prevent that statute from operating as special law for limitation purposes. The proviso allowing a further period of sixty days on sufficient cause was held to be an express exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act beyond the outer limit. Once that statutory limit expired, delay could not be condoned and the appeal became time-barred. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 07 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764719