<?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>1968 (3) TMI 106 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166284</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court&#039;s judgment regarding an oral agreement for the sale of shares, finding the agreement valid despite the absence of a formal written document. The appellant was deemed to have notice of the prior agreement, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. The Court modified the High Court&#039;s direction on site allotment, emphasizing the need for equitable considerations in the final partition decree.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2014 12:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=365306" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (3) TMI 106 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166284</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court&#039;s judgment regarding an oral agreement for the sale of shares, finding the agreement valid despite the absence of a formal written document. The appellant was deemed to have notice of the prior agreement, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. The Court modified the High Court&#039;s direction on site allotment, emphasizing the need for equitable considerations in the final partition decree.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166284</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>