<?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 (1) TMI 167 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272866</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court&#039;s judgment and restoring that of the trial court. The appellant was directed to deposit Rs. 20,000 and the sale document in the Court of the Civil Judge, Agra within six weeks. The Court found that time was not of the essence of the contract, the appellant was ready to perform, the contract subsisted on the suit filing date, and the respondents breached the contract by not executing the sale deed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 May 2018 18:23:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=521174" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (1) TMI 167 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272866</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court&#039;s judgment and restoring that of the trial court. The appellant was directed to deposit Rs. 20,000 and the sale document in the Court of the Civil Judge, Agra within six weeks. The Court found that time was not of the essence of the contract, the appellant was ready to perform, the contract subsisted on the suit filing date, and the respondents breached the contract by not executing the sale deed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272866</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>