<?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>1964 (1) TMI 60 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275126</link>
    <description>A party seeking specific performance must keep the contract subsisting and show continuous readiness and willingness from the contract date until hearing. Here, the appellant&#039;s notice demanding refund of the advance and damages was treated as an election to regard the contract as broken, which was inconsistent with later seeking enforcement of the same contract. Once the appellant abandoned the contractual footing, the contract could not be revived at his choice for specific performance. Reliance on Section 24(c) of the Specific Relief Act did not help, because the defect was prior abandonment, not merely selection of remedies. Specific performance was therefore unavailable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jan 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Sep 2018 15:47:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=534994" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (1) TMI 60 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275126</link>
      <description>A party seeking specific performance must keep the contract subsisting and show continuous readiness and willingness from the contract date until hearing. Here, the appellant&#039;s notice demanding refund of the advance and damages was treated as an election to regard the contract as broken, which was inconsistent with later seeking enforcement of the same contract. Once the appellant abandoned the contractual footing, the contract could not be revived at his choice for specific performance. Reliance on Section 24(c) of the Specific Relief Act did not help, because the defect was prior abandonment, not merely selection of remedies. Specific performance was therefore unavailable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jan 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275126</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>