<?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>1977 (9) TMI 122 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272710</link>
    <description>A cancellation notice that referred only to one of two distinct powers of attorney was treated as ambiguous and ineffective to revoke both instruments, because extrinsic material could not cure the defect. The note also explains that an agency is irrevocable under section 202 of the Contract Act where the agent has a legally protected interest in the subject-matter; an agreement for sale and a power given for valuable consideration to secure performance created such an interest, making the authority a power coupled with interest. It further states that interest on unpaid purchase money was not payable without delivery of possession or another lawful basis, so the interest direction was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Sep 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 May 2018 15:33:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=520162" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (9) TMI 122 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272710</link>
      <description>A cancellation notice that referred only to one of two distinct powers of attorney was treated as ambiguous and ineffective to revoke both instruments, because extrinsic material could not cure the defect. The note also explains that an agency is irrevocable under section 202 of the Contract Act where the agent has a legally protected interest in the subject-matter; an agreement for sale and a power given for valuable consideration to secure performance created such an interest, making the authority a power coupled with interest. It further states that interest on unpaid purchase money was not payable without delivery of possession or another lawful basis, so the interest direction was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Sep 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272710</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>