Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 of 96001 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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
