<?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>2009 (2) TMI 880 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199936</link>
    <description>Specific performance under the Specific Relief Act depends on the plaintiff proving continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and the Court found that condition unmet on the facts, including delay and lack of convincing financial preparedness. Even where enforceability is otherwise shown, the remedy remains discretionary, and the Court declined specific performance because of the long passage of time, the subsequent purchasers&#039; long occupation, and the equities between the parties. Monetary relief was directed instead, so the decree for specific performance was refused but alternative compensation was granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2018 14:16:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=512839" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 880 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199936</link>
      <description>Specific performance under the Specific Relief Act depends on the plaintiff proving continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and the Court found that condition unmet on the facts, including delay and lack of convincing financial preparedness. Even where enforceability is otherwise shown, the remedy remains discretionary, and the Court declined specific performance because of the long passage of time, the subsequent purchasers&#039; long occupation, and the equities between the parties. Monetary relief was directed instead, so the decree for specific performance was refused but alternative compensation was granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199936</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>