<?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>1972 (1) TMI 103 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174437</link>
    <description>Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 excludes time spent in a prior civil proceeding only if that proceeding was pursued with due diligence and in good faith in a court unable to entertain it for defect of jurisdiction or a like cause. Here, the objection that the Government was a necessary party was raised at the earliest stage and remained throughout the earlier suit and appeal. The plaintiff nevertheless continued the litigation and sought adjudication on the objection instead of curing the defect and proceeding afresh after the required notice to the State. That conduct was not good faith prosecution, so Section 14 did not apply and the suit remained time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2015 12:30:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=400554" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (1) TMI 103 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174437</link>
      <description>Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 excludes time spent in a prior civil proceeding only if that proceeding was pursued with due diligence and in good faith in a court unable to entertain it for defect of jurisdiction or a like cause. Here, the objection that the Government was a necessary party was raised at the earliest stage and remained throughout the earlier suit and appeal. The plaintiff nevertheless continued the litigation and sought adjudication on the objection instead of curing the defect and proceeding afresh after the required notice to the State. That conduct was not good faith prosecution, so Section 14 did not apply and the suit remained time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174437</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>