<?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 (12) TMI 605 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174631</link>
    <description>A voluntary retirement scheme that leaves acceptance or rejection to the employer, permits alteration or rescission, and requires written acceptance is an invitation to treat, not a binding offer; the employee&#039;s option is therefore revocable before acceptance under Section 5 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. That right is lost only where the employee has accepted scheme benefits, in which case waiver and approbation and reprobation prevent withdrawal. The State Bank of India scheme was treated differently because its cut-off date, time-bound operation, and clause 7 created enforceable contractual rights and obligations on its own terms, so the nationalised bank reasoning did not apply identically.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2016 10:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=401246" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (12) TMI 605 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174631</link>
      <description>A voluntary retirement scheme that leaves acceptance or rejection to the employer, permits alteration or rescission, and requires written acceptance is an invitation to treat, not a binding offer; the employee&#039;s option is therefore revocable before acceptance under Section 5 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. That right is lost only where the employee has accepted scheme benefits, in which case waiver and approbation and reprobation prevent withdrawal. The State Bank of India scheme was treated differently because its cut-off date, time-bound operation, and clause 7 created enforceable contractual rights and obligations on its own terms, so the nationalised bank reasoning did not apply identically.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174631</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>