https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299097 Exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act requires the claimant to prove that the earlier proceeding was prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith in a court unable to entertain it for want of jurisdiction or a like cause. Good faith under Section 2(h) requires due care and attention. The Bombay HC found that the earlier and later suits concerned the same subject matter, but the plaintiffs offered only a bare plea of good faith and due diligence, without particulars or oral evidence, and the documentary record did not establish due care and attention. The initial burden under Section 14 was therefore not discharged, and the suit was held barred by limitation. en-us Fri, 20 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Dec 2021 12:34:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299097 Exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act requires the claimant to prove that the earlier proceeding was prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith in a court unable to entertain it for want of jurisdiction or a like cause. Good faith under Section 2(h) requires due care and attention. The Bombay HC found that the earlier and later suits concerned the same subject matter, but the plaintiffs offered only a bare plea of good faith and due diligence, without particulars or oral evidence, and the documentary record did not establish due care and attention. The initial burden under Section 14 was therefore not discharged, and the suit was held barred by limitation. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 20 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299097