<?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>1954 (1) TMI 35 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199031</link>
    <description>For limitation purposes, an application to set aside an ex parte decree is made when the motion is first brought before the Court and the applicant seeks directions or an adjournment, not when notice of motion is merely issued. A notice of motion is only intimation of an intended proceeding; the limitation period under Article 164, read with Section 3 of the Limitation Act, turns on initiation of the application before the Court. On that approach, the application in the present matter was treated as made when the motion was called on and directions for affidavits were taken, so the challenge was within time and the limitation-based dismissal was incorrect.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Feb 2018 15:40:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=509493" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1954 (1) TMI 35 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199031</link>
      <description>For limitation purposes, an application to set aside an ex parte decree is made when the motion is first brought before the Court and the applicant seeks directions or an adjournment, not when notice of motion is merely issued. A notice of motion is only intimation of an intended proceeding; the limitation period under Article 164, read with Section 3 of the Limitation Act, turns on initiation of the application before the Court. On that approach, the application in the present matter was treated as made when the motion was called on and directions for affidavits were taken, so the challenge was within time and the limitation-based dismissal was incorrect.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199031</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>