<?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>1928 (5) TMI 2 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283522</link>
    <description>The court held that the limitation period for applications under Section 144, CPC should be counted from the decrees of the lower appellate Court, not from the High Court&#039;s dismissal of the appeals. The tenants&#039; applications were dismissed as they were beyond the prescribed three-year limitation period under Article 181 of the Limitation Act. The plaintiff&#039;s appeals were allowed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff for the court hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 May 1928 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2019 17:22:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=588867" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1928 (5) TMI 2 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283522</link>
      <description>The court held that the limitation period for applications under Section 144, CPC should be counted from the decrees of the lower appellate Court, not from the High Court&#039;s dismissal of the appeals. The tenants&#039; applications were dismissed as they were beyond the prescribed three-year limitation period under Article 181 of the Limitation Act. The plaintiff&#039;s appeals were allowed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff for the court hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 May 1928 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283522</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>