Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Court held that the petitioner was ready and willing to perform the contract u/s 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, having paid a substantial portion of the consideration. It was a fit case for directing specific performance u/ss 10 and 16, as compensation in money would not afford adequate relief for breach of contract to transfer immovable property. The doctrine of lis pendens u/s 52 of the Transfer of Property Act bars transfer of suit property during pendency of litigation, except under court's authority. Pendency commences from the date of institution until disposal, and the doctrine applies to third-party purchasers once the suit is instituted. The Court recalled its earlier judgment due to errors apparent on the face of record regarding limitation and specific performance, and restored the High Court's judgment, allowing the review petitions.
The Court held that the petitioner was ready and willing to perform the contract u/s 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, having paid a substantial portion of the consideration. It was a fit case for directing specific performance u/ss 10 and 16, as compensation in money would not afford adequate relief for breach of contract to transfer immovable property. The doctrine of lis pendens u/s 52 of the Transfer of Property Act bars transfer of suit property during pendency of litigation, except under court's authority. Pendency commences from the date of institution until disposal, and the doctrine applies to third-party purchasers once the suit is instituted. The Court recalled its earlier judgment due to errors apparent on the face of record regarding limitation and specific performance, and restored the High Court's judgment, allowing the review petitions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
