<?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>2012 (4) TMI 717 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194500</link>
    <description>In assessing rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the plaint averments are material and they must be accepted at face value without a detailed inquiry into disputed facts or law. On that footing, pleadings alleging execution of a memorandum of understanding, payment and acceptance of earnest money, extension of time, demands for performance, and readiness and willingness to perform disclosed a triable cause of action. The memorandum was said to contain the essential terms of the bargain, including the property, consideration and payment mode, and the conduct of the parties supported a concluded arrangement capable of specific performance. Rejection of the plaint was therefore treated as unwarranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Sep 2017 17:40:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=488873" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (4) TMI 717 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194500</link>
      <description>In assessing rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the plaint averments are material and they must be accepted at face value without a detailed inquiry into disputed facts or law. On that footing, pleadings alleging execution of a memorandum of understanding, payment and acceptance of earnest money, extension of time, demands for performance, and readiness and willingness to perform disclosed a triable cause of action. The memorandum was said to contain the essential terms of the bargain, including the property, consideration and payment mode, and the conduct of the parties supported a concluded arrangement capable of specific performance. Rejection of the plaint was therefore treated as unwarranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194500</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>