<?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>2012 (12) TMI 1213 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295340</link>
    <description>A claim for compensation founded on false implication in a criminal case and traceable to malicious prosecution is governed by Article 74 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The limitation period is one year, running from the date of acquittal. As the claimant was acquitted on 4.10.2008 and the suit was filed on 6.10.2010, the suit was beyond time. No alternative limitation provision was shown to apply, so the suit was barred by limitation and the dismissal was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 May 2021 15:42:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=645457" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (12) TMI 1213 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295340</link>
      <description>A claim for compensation founded on false implication in a criminal case and traceable to malicious prosecution is governed by Article 74 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The limitation period is one year, running from the date of acquittal. As the claimant was acquitted on 4.10.2008 and the suit was filed on 6.10.2010, the suit was beyond time. No alternative limitation provision was shown to apply, so the suit was barred by limitation and the dismissal was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295340</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>