<?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>2010 (10) TMI 1017 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171873</link>
    <description>Commercial commencement was held to be properly refused where the appellant had not rectified technical deficiencies or satisfied licence conditions, and its own correspondence showed the system was not ready; the denial was therefore not arbitrary, mala fide, or discriminatory. The appellant also could not challenge liquidated damages after unconditionally accepting and acting upon the Migration Package, paying the demanded sums, and taking its benefits. On those facts, the doctrines of approbate and reprobate, election, and estoppel by acceptance of benefits barred the challenge, and the liquidated damages were treated as consistent with the licence conditions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=392487" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (10) TMI 1017 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171873</link>
      <description>Commercial commencement was held to be properly refused where the appellant had not rectified technical deficiencies or satisfied licence conditions, and its own correspondence showed the system was not ready; the denial was therefore not arbitrary, mala fide, or discriminatory. The appellant also could not challenge liquidated damages after unconditionally accepting and acting upon the Migration Package, paying the demanded sums, and taking its benefits. On those facts, the doctrines of approbate and reprobate, election, and estoppel by acceptance of benefits barred the challenge, and the liquidated damages were treated as consistent with the licence conditions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171873</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>