<?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>1962 (3) TMI 77 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165169</link>
    <description>A question of law is substantial when it directly and substantially affects the parties&#039; rights and is open, unsettled, or reasonably debatable; it is not substantial merely because it is important or because settled principles are applied to facts. On that approach, certification was wrongly refused. Clause 14 of the managing agency agreement was construed as a special compensation provision fixing liquidated damages for premature termination by reference to the contractual minimum salary for the unexpired term, and it excluded a claim for unascertained damages based on contingent profits or general-law compensation. The contractual measure therefore governed, and the broader damages claim failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2014 12:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=355742" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (3) TMI 77 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165169</link>
      <description>A question of law is substantial when it directly and substantially affects the parties&#039; rights and is open, unsettled, or reasonably debatable; it is not substantial merely because it is important or because settled principles are applied to facts. On that approach, certification was wrongly refused. Clause 14 of the managing agency agreement was construed as a special compensation provision fixing liquidated damages for premature termination by reference to the contractual minimum salary for the unexpired term, and it excluded a claim for unascertained damages based on contingent profits or general-law compensation. The contractual measure therefore governed, and the broader damages claim failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165169</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>