<?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>2010 (11) TMI 858 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156827</link>
    <description>Continuous readiness and willingness must be pleaded and proved by conduct and financial capacity to secure specific performance, and the plaintiff satisfied that burden through part-payment, documentary proof of funds, and consistent pursuit of performance. The agreement was not a contingent contract, because discharge of the mortgage and production of title deeds were incidental covenants and not impossible conditions; the contract remained enforceable. Marshalling was also upheld to protect the decree-holder without prejudicing the mortgagee, and the award of costs and ancillary directions were sustained. The High Court&#039;s decree for specific performance and connected equitable relief was left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Sep 2013 15:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173853" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (11) TMI 858 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156827</link>
      <description>Continuous readiness and willingness must be pleaded and proved by conduct and financial capacity to secure specific performance, and the plaintiff satisfied that burden through part-payment, documentary proof of funds, and consistent pursuit of performance. The agreement was not a contingent contract, because discharge of the mortgage and production of title deeds were incidental covenants and not impossible conditions; the contract remained enforceable. Marshalling was also upheld to protect the decree-holder without prejudicing the mortgagee, and the award of costs and ancillary directions were sustained. The High Court&#039;s decree for specific performance and connected equitable relief was left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156827</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>