https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194291 A contract for sale is not frustrated under section 56 of the Indian Contract Act merely because the first permission was refused on a technical ground; frustration requires a supervening event that makes performance legally or practically impossible in substance. The refusal here did not strike at the foundation of the bargain and left open a fresh request for permission after obtaining the required certificate. The later administrative authority remained competent to grant the certificate and permission under section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and Rule 36(f), so the subsequent permission was valid. en-us Fri, 17 Dec 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Sep 2017 16:14:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194291 A contract for sale is not frustrated under section 56 of the Indian Contract Act merely because the first permission was refused on a technical ground; frustration requires a supervening event that makes performance legally or practically impossible in substance. The refusal here did not strike at the foundation of the bargain and left open a fresh request for permission after obtaining the required certificate. The later administrative authority remained competent to grant the certificate and permission under section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and Rule 36(f), so the subsequent permission was valid. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 17 Dec 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194291