<?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>1932 (2) TMI 24 - Bombay High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173051</link>
    <description>Correspondence between a municipality and government may disclose a contractual arrangement and sufficient consideration where the parties accept definite terms and act on them, but enforceability depends on strict compliance with mandatory statutory execution requirements. An agreement not made and signed by the authorised officers in the prescribed form is not binding, and subsequent conduct or executed consideration cannot cure that defect. The discussion also rejects act of State and later impossibility as defences where the arrangement is an administrative one and the asserted liability would, if valid, remain enforceable despite later governmental changes. The arrangement was therefore treated as unenforceable for want of legal formality.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 1932 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2015 11:37:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=396215" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1932 (2) TMI 24 - Bombay High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173051</link>
      <description>Correspondence between a municipality and government may disclose a contractual arrangement and sufficient consideration where the parties accept definite terms and act on them, but enforceability depends on strict compliance with mandatory statutory execution requirements. An agreement not made and signed by the authorised officers in the prescribed form is not binding, and subsequent conduct or executed consideration cannot cure that defect. The discussion also rejects act of State and later impossibility as defences where the arrangement is an administrative one and the asserted liability would, if valid, remain enforceable despite later governmental changes. The arrangement was therefore treated as unenforceable for want of legal formality.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 1932 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173051</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>