<?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>1970 (9) TMI 105 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169625</link>
    <description>Section 14(1) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 permits exclusion of time spent in a prior civil proceeding when that proceeding was pursued with due diligence and good faith, based on the same cause of action, and failed because the court could not entertain it for defect of jurisdiction or a like cause. The Court treated the infirmity in the earlier money suit as analogous to a jurisdictional defect because the claim could not be effectively adjudicated in that form, and read &quot;other cause of a like nature&quot; liberally. The plaintiffs were therefore entitled to exclude the earlier period, and the claim for future mesne profits was not barred by limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Jun 2023 10:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=383199" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1970 (9) TMI 105 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169625</link>
      <description>Section 14(1) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 permits exclusion of time spent in a prior civil proceeding when that proceeding was pursued with due diligence and good faith, based on the same cause of action, and failed because the court could not entertain it for defect of jurisdiction or a like cause. The Court treated the infirmity in the earlier money suit as analogous to a jurisdictional defect because the claim could not be effectively adjudicated in that form, and read &quot;other cause of a like nature&quot; liberally. The plaintiffs were therefore entitled to exclude the earlier period, and the claim for future mesne profits was not barred by limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169625</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>