<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2010 (10) TMI 941 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160016</link>
    <description>Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, so time spent in bona fide and due diligence before a court lacking jurisdiction must be excluded when computing limitation. Applying that principle, the appellants&#039; earlier prosecution before the wrong forum did not render the Section 34 filing time-barred once the excluded period was removed, and the refusal to condone delay was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Jun 2014 14:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338381" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (10) TMI 941 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160016</link>
      <description>Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, so time spent in bona fide and due diligence before a court lacking jurisdiction must be excluded when computing limitation. Applying that principle, the appellants&#039; earlier prosecution before the wrong forum did not render the Section 34 filing time-barred once the excluded period was removed, and the refusal to condone delay was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160016</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>