https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272465 Section 14 of the Limitation Act was unavailable because the earlier suit had been entertained and decided on merits, not rejected for want of jurisdiction or a similar defect; a proceeding so decided is still "entertained" for that provision. The prior suit failed because the relief claimed was not legally maintainable against the son of a deceased agent, so the exclusion of time was not attracted. Article 89 applied to the later suit by a principal against an agent for movable property received and not accounted for, even though the claim was not formally framed as one for accounts. As the suit was filed after the limitation period running from termination of the agency, it was barred. en-us Wed, 10 Jul 1957 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 May 2018 12:23:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272465 Section 14 of the Limitation Act was unavailable because the earlier suit had been entertained and decided on merits, not rejected for want of jurisdiction or a similar defect; a proceeding so decided is still "entertained" for that provision. The prior suit failed because the relief claimed was not legally maintainable against the son of a deceased agent, so the exclusion of time was not attracted. Article 89 applied to the later suit by a principal against an agent for movable property received and not accounted for, even though the claim was not formally framed as one for accounts. As the suit was filed after the limitation period running from termination of the agency, it was barred. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 10 Jul 1957 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272465