<?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>2001 (8) TMI 1369 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168317</link>
    <description>Section 100 CPC confines second appeal to substantial questions of law, so concurrent findings granting specific performance could not be disturbed on grounds not raised below or unsupported by the evidence. A reconveyance clause was construed from its terms as an ordinary bilateral contract for sale, not a mere unilateral option to repurchase; time was not made of the essence, and readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act were established. Allegations of variation in consideration and want of clean hands did not bar relief because the pleadings did not seek alteration of price and the objections were neither raised nor tried below. Specific performance was therefore restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=376383" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (8) TMI 1369 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168317</link>
      <description>Section 100 CPC confines second appeal to substantial questions of law, so concurrent findings granting specific performance could not be disturbed on grounds not raised below or unsupported by the evidence. A reconveyance clause was construed from its terms as an ordinary bilateral contract for sale, not a mere unilateral option to repurchase; time was not made of the essence, and readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act were established. Allegations of variation in consideration and want of clean hands did not bar relief because the pleadings did not seek alteration of price and the objections were neither raised nor tried below. Specific performance was therefore restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168317</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>