Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
Section 80P deduction covers Souharda credit societies, including qualifying surplus-deposit interest, subject to member KYC verification for cash dep...
Suit for malicious prosecution against government authorities is...
Malicious prosecution suit against government authorities barred for late notice, overruling HC's view. Notice must precede limitation expiry per precedents.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Suit for malicious prosecution against government authorities is barred by limitation as notice u/s 80 CPC was issued after expiry of limitation period, contrary to rulings in Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Puri v. Gangaram Chhapolia and State of Gujarat v. Kothari and Associates, which mandate notice before limitation expires. High Court's view declaring suit maintainable is set aside and quashed, with declaration that suit is time-barred.
Suit for malicious prosecution against government authorities is barred by limitation as notice u/s 80 CPC was issued after expiry of limitation period, contrary to rulings in Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Puri v. Gangaram Chhapolia and State of Gujarat v. Kothari and Associates, which mandate notice before limitation expires. High Court's view declaring suit maintainable is set aside and quashed, with declaration that suit is time-barred.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.