https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195493 An agreement for sale was not treated as void for public policy or illegality because the unlawful object was not clearly established, full disclosure of the connected arrangements was shown, and there was no reliable basis to treat the transaction as a sham or to doubt the authority of the company's representative. The Court also found that the plaintiff had the capacity to pay and remained ready and willing to perform, satisfying the equitable requirements for specific performance. In the absence of any equitable reason to refuse relief, the decree for specific performance was upheld. en-us Thu, 20 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Nov 2017 18:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195493 An agreement for sale was not treated as void for public policy or illegality because the unlawful object was not clearly established, full disclosure of the connected arrangements was shown, and there was no reliable basis to treat the transaction as a sham or to doubt the authority of the company's representative. The Court also found that the plaintiff had the capacity to pay and remained ready and willing to perform, satisfying the equitable requirements for specific performance. In the absence of any equitable reason to refuse relief, the decree for specific performance was upheld. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 20 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195493