<?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>1978 (2) TMI 210 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168413</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court upheld the High Court&#039;s decision to dismiss the appeal and deny specific performance. The plaintiff&#039;s delay, lack of readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and financial incapability were key factors in this outcome. The Court emphasized that specific performance is discretionary and should not be granted if it unfairly advantages the plaintiff. The appeal was dismissed with costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Feb 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2015 18:50:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=377084" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (2) TMI 210 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168413</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court upheld the High Court&#039;s decision to dismiss the appeal and deny specific performance. The plaintiff&#039;s delay, lack of readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and financial incapability were key factors in this outcome. The Court emphasized that specific performance is discretionary and should not be granted if it unfairly advantages the plaintiff. The appeal was dismissed with costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Feb 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168413</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>