<?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>1987 (5) TMI 385 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462469</link>
    <description>Section 14 of the Indian Treasure-Trove Act, 1878 applies only to the post-declaration proceedings contemplated by Sections 9 and 13, because the phrase &quot;such order&quot; refers to the order under Section 13 and not to an adjournment under Section 8; a counter-claim arising from a suit under Section 8 therefore could not be rejected on that basis. Order VIII Rule 6A(1) CPC does not bar a counter-claim merely because it is filed after the written statement, provided the cause of action had accrued before the defence was delivered or before time for doing so expired. On the facts stated, the counter-claim was also within the three-year limitation period and was maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 May 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2025 10:19:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=831503" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (5) TMI 385 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462469</link>
      <description>Section 14 of the Indian Treasure-Trove Act, 1878 applies only to the post-declaration proceedings contemplated by Sections 9 and 13, because the phrase &quot;such order&quot; refers to the order under Section 13 and not to an adjournment under Section 8; a counter-claim arising from a suit under Section 8 therefore could not be rejected on that basis. Order VIII Rule 6A(1) CPC does not bar a counter-claim merely because it is filed after the written statement, provided the cause of action had accrued before the defence was delivered or before time for doing so expired. On the facts stated, the counter-claim was also within the three-year limitation period and was maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 May 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462469</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>