https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243511 Interim protection under Section 17 was rightly refused where a commercial development contract required the contractor to complete the work on time, arrange its own funding, and secure approvals, but the contractor accepted revised arrangements with knowledge of the SEZ regime and failed to show that the other side caused the delay. The record also showed default in bank repayment, invocation of the counter guarantee, stoppage of work, and lack of readiness and willingness. In these circumstances, the tribunal and Court held that termination for prima facie default could stand, the bargain could not be rewritten, and any remedy lay in damages rather than compelled continuation of the contract. en-us Fri, 29 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Feb 2014 08:22:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243511 Interim protection under Section 17 was rightly refused where a commercial development contract required the contractor to complete the work on time, arrange its own funding, and secure approvals, but the contractor accepted revised arrangements with knowledge of the SEZ regime and failed to show that the other side caused the delay. The record also showed default in bank repayment, invocation of the counter guarantee, stoppage of work, and lack of readiness and willingness. In these circumstances, the tribunal and Court held that termination for prima facie default could stand, the bargain could not be rewritten, and any remedy lay in damages rather than compelled continuation of the contract. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 29 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243511