https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197522 Writ jurisdiction is ordinarily unsuitable for disputes arising from a concluded property sale contract where performance, possession, sanctioned plans, and payment have already occurred and disputed facts predominate. The Court nevertheless examined the merits rather than dismissing on maintainability alone. On substance, alleged misrepresentation, mistake, frustration, and later reduction of FAR did not justify rescission, restitution, or damages because the change in FAR flowed from a change in law, the transaction had been affirmed through acceptance of the sale deed and performance, and the completed transfer made restoration impracticable. Ceiling-related conditions also did not alter the result. en-us Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Jun 2024 19:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197522 Writ jurisdiction is ordinarily unsuitable for disputes arising from a concluded property sale contract where performance, possession, sanctioned plans, and payment have already occurred and disputed facts predominate. The Court nevertheless examined the merits rather than dismissing on maintainability alone. On substance, alleged misrepresentation, mistake, frustration, and later reduction of FAR did not justify rescission, restitution, or damages because the change in FAR flowed from a change in law, the transaction had been affirmed through acceptance of the sale deed and performance, and the completed transfer made restoration impracticable. Ceiling-related conditions also did not alter the result. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197522