https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192608 A payment described as an advance was held to require characterization from the contract and surrounding circumstances, because mere description does not the legal nature of the sum. Even if treated as earnest money, forfeiture was not automatic: the party resisting refund had to plead and prove the loss or damage said to justify retention, and the court had to consider reasonable compensation. As no loss was pleaded or proved and no material established forfeitable earnest money, automatic retention was unsustainable. The suit dismissal was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh disposal. en-us Fri, 18 Oct 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Jun 2017 18:32:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192608 A payment described as an advance was held to require characterization from the contract and surrounding circumstances, because mere description does not the legal nature of the sum. Even if treated as earnest money, forfeiture was not automatic: the party resisting refund had to plead and prove the loss or damage said to justify retention, and the court had to consider reasonable compensation. As no loss was pleaded or proved and no material established forfeitable earnest money, automatic retention was unsustainable. The suit dismissal was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh disposal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 18 Oct 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192608