<?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>2007 (8) TMI 775 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193542</link>
    <description>A contract for sale of thika tenancy-related interests became unenforceable when the West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 came into force during the pendency of the suit. The Act vested the superior landlord&#039;s interest in the State, prohibited transfer of thika tenancy interests, and rendered contrary transfers or agreements void, with overriding effect over inconsistent agreements and other law. In that statutory setting, performance of the agreement became both unlawful and impossible, attracting the doctrine of supervening impossibility under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Specific performance was therefore unavailable and the agreement could not be enforced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Aug 2017 17:39:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=484504" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (8) TMI 775 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193542</link>
      <description>A contract for sale of thika tenancy-related interests became unenforceable when the West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 came into force during the pendency of the suit. The Act vested the superior landlord&#039;s interest in the State, prohibited transfer of thika tenancy interests, and rendered contrary transfers or agreements void, with overriding effect over inconsistent agreements and other law. In that statutory setting, performance of the agreement became both unlawful and impossible, attracting the doctrine of supervening impossibility under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Specific performance was therefore unavailable and the agreement could not be enforced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193542</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>