<?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>1963 (9) TMI 56 - Andhra High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169622</link>
    <description>Section 14 of the Limitation Act is construed broadly to exclude the full period spent in prosecuting an infructuous civil revision petition, not merely the time after formal filing. The preparatory steps needed to institute the proceeding, such as obtaining copies and completing indispensable filing requirements, also count as part of the prosecuting period where due diligence and good faith are shown. This reading reflects the provision&#039;s purpose of protecting a diligent litigant from the consequences of fruitless litigation. The narrower view, which confined exclusion to actual pendency in court, is rejected as inconsistent with the text, object, and Explanation to the section.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Sep 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:40:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=383195" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1963 (9) TMI 56 - Andhra High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169622</link>
      <description>Section 14 of the Limitation Act is construed broadly to exclude the full period spent in prosecuting an infructuous civil revision petition, not merely the time after formal filing. The preparatory steps needed to institute the proceeding, such as obtaining copies and completing indispensable filing requirements, also count as part of the prosecuting period where due diligence and good faith are shown. This reading reflects the provision&#039;s purpose of protecting a diligent litigant from the consequences of fruitless litigation. The narrower view, which confined exclusion to actual pendency in court, is rejected as inconsistent with the text, object, and Explanation to the section.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Sep 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169622</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>