<?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>1953 (9) TMI 37 - HYDERABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313953</link>
    <description>Time excluded for obtaining a copy of a decree begins only when a party makes a diligent application for that copy; a negligent interval before the application cannot be treated as &quot;time requisite&quot; under limitation law or excused under the condonation provision. On the facts, the delay arose from lack of diligence, so the appeal failed on limitation. The document also states that a prior adjudication, once treated as final and not effectively challenged within time, can operate as res judicata and bar a later suit and appeal. The resulting legal effect was that both challenges were untenable and the dismissal decree remained undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 1953 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 May 2024 18:18:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=752598" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1953 (9) TMI 37 - HYDERABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313953</link>
      <description>Time excluded for obtaining a copy of a decree begins only when a party makes a diligent application for that copy; a negligent interval before the application cannot be treated as &quot;time requisite&quot; under limitation law or excused under the condonation provision. On the facts, the delay arose from lack of diligence, so the appeal failed on limitation. The document also states that a prior adjudication, once treated as final and not effectively challenged within time, can operate as res judicata and bar a later suit and appeal. The resulting legal effect was that both challenges were untenable and the dismissal decree remained undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 1953 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313953</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>