<?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>2002 (11) TMI 769 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168271</link>
    <description>Specific performance may be granted for a separable and definite part of a contract when the plaintiff relinquishes the excluded portion and the remaining subject matter is ascertainable. The commentary applies this principle to a land agreement, treating the enforceable share as severable from the portion not proved or not available for relief. It also explains that fixed machinery attached to land may be treated as immovable for specific relief purposes, or otherwise may still be specifically enforceable where it is not an ordinary market item and damages would not provide adequate compensation. The discussion further notes that partnership objections did not defeat enforcement on the stated facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:25:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=375805" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (11) TMI 769 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168271</link>
      <description>Specific performance may be granted for a separable and definite part of a contract when the plaintiff relinquishes the excluded portion and the remaining subject matter is ascertainable. The commentary applies this principle to a land agreement, treating the enforceable share as severable from the portion not proved or not available for relief. It also explains that fixed machinery attached to land may be treated as immovable for specific relief purposes, or otherwise may still be specifically enforceable where it is not an ordinary market item and damages would not provide adequate compensation. The discussion further notes that partnership objections did not defeat enforcement on the stated facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168271</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>