<?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>1904 (1) TMI 2 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285432</link>
    <description>The court discharged the rule with costs, affirming that the limitation period starts when the plaintiff&#039;s right to sue arises, unless there is a clear waiver by accepting overdue instalments. The judgment clarified the interpretation of bond terms, the application of the Statute of Limitation, and the significance of waiver in affecting the right to sue for the whole amount.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 1904 00:00:00 +0521</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Jan 2020 13:32:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=600027" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1904 (1) TMI 2 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285432</link>
      <description>The court discharged the rule with costs, affirming that the limitation period starts when the plaintiff&#039;s right to sue arises, unless there is a clear waiver by accepting overdue instalments. The judgment clarified the interpretation of bond terms, the application of the Statute of Limitation, and the significance of waiver in affecting the right to sue for the whole amount.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 1904 00:00:00 +0521</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285432</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>