<?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>1949 (5) TMI 17 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275712</link>
    <description>A concluded and specifically enforceable agreement for sale of shares and a partnership interest was found to have been formed orally through the parties&#039; representatives, and later correspondence did not unsettle that completed bargain because stamp duty was a non-essential matter. The agreement did not fail merely because one contemplated vendor did not join, as the signatories undertook to sell their interests unconditionally. Specific performance against the remaining promisors was maintainable because joint liability was treated as joint and several absent contrary intention. The remedy was also appropriate for sale of private-company shares and a fractional partnership interest where damages were inadequate. The appeal therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 May 1949 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2022 13:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=538193" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1949 (5) TMI 17 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275712</link>
      <description>A concluded and specifically enforceable agreement for sale of shares and a partnership interest was found to have been formed orally through the parties&#039; representatives, and later correspondence did not unsettle that completed bargain because stamp duty was a non-essential matter. The agreement did not fail merely because one contemplated vendor did not join, as the signatories undertook to sell their interests unconditionally. Specific performance against the remaining promisors was maintainable because joint liability was treated as joint and several absent contrary intention. The remedy was also appropriate for sale of private-company shares and a fractional partnership interest where damages were inadequate. The appeal therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 May 1949 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275712</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>