<?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>The Supreme Court refused to grant specific performance of the contract due to the plaintiff&#039;s failure to prove readiness and willingness and the bona fide purchaser status of defendant No. 6. The Court emphasized the discretionary nature of specific performance and directed the defendants to pay Rs. 60,000 to the plaintiff. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.</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>The Supreme Court refused to grant specific performance of the contract due to the plaintiff&#039;s failure to prove readiness and willingness and the bona fide purchaser status of defendant No. 6. The Court emphasized the discretionary nature of specific performance and directed the defendants to pay Rs. 60,000 to the plaintiff. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.</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>