https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756628 A suit for malicious prosecution against the Government or a public officer was held not to be validly instituted until the mandatory two-month notice period under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 had expired. Because the plaint was filed before notice was served, the suit was initially not maintainable, and the objection based on absence of prior notice succeeded. On limitation, the claim had already become time barred when the plaint was first filed; later service of notice and refiling could not revive the barred suit. The High Court decree was set aside, and the suit failed as not maintainable and barred by time. en-us Tue, 16 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Jan 2025 11:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756628 A suit for malicious prosecution against the Government or a public officer was held not to be validly instituted until the mandatory two-month notice period under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 had expired. Because the plaint was filed before notice was served, the suit was initially not maintainable, and the objection based on absence of prior notice succeeded. On limitation, the claim had already become time barred when the plaint was first filed; later service of notice and refiling could not revive the barred suit. The High Court decree was set aside, and the suit failed as not maintainable and barred by time. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 16 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756628