<?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>1969 (10) TMI 68 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159324</link>
    <description>The SC upheld forfeiture of Rs. 2,50,000 paid as earnest money by appellants who breached contract. The court found contract terms clearly established payment as earnest deposit, not part payment, giving respondents right to forfeit upon breach. Appellants failed to raise issues of unreasonable quantum or penalty nature of forfeiture, led no evidence, and admitted breach. Having abandoned plea that contract was voidable under s.19 Contract Act, appellants could not invoke s.64. Appeal dismissed with forfeiture upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 May 2025 18:29:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336310" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (10) TMI 68 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159324</link>
      <description>The SC upheld forfeiture of Rs. 2,50,000 paid as earnest money by appellants who breached contract. The court found contract terms clearly established payment as earnest deposit, not part payment, giving respondents right to forfeit upon breach. Appellants failed to raise issues of unreasonable quantum or penalty nature of forfeiture, led no evidence, and admitted breach. Having abandoned plea that contract was voidable under s.19 Contract Act, appellants could not invoke s.64. Appeal dismissed with forfeiture upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159324</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>