<?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>1951 (5) TMI 14 - PUNJAB-HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276606</link>
    <description>Book entries in commercial accounts, though relevant, do not by themselves prove liability; the party relying on them must show that they reflect actual transactions and real payments. On the facts stated, the defendants failed to prove that the disputed debit entry was genuine or that the sale of the 110 bales of cotton was lawfully justified, including on any unpaid seller&#039;s lien or margin-money basis. The plaintiffs were therefore entitled to recover the amount wrongly debited with contractual interest, but not damages calculated on the suit-date market rate, since the earlier breach and the relevant delivery-date market rate were not proved.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 May 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2018 16:00:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=541840" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1951 (5) TMI 14 - PUNJAB-HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276606</link>
      <description>Book entries in commercial accounts, though relevant, do not by themselves prove liability; the party relying on them must show that they reflect actual transactions and real payments. On the facts stated, the defendants failed to prove that the disputed debit entry was genuine or that the sale of the 110 bales of cotton was lawfully justified, including on any unpaid seller&#039;s lien or margin-money basis. The plaintiffs were therefore entitled to recover the amount wrongly debited with contractual interest, but not damages calculated on the suit-date market rate, since the earlier breach and the relevant delivery-date market rate were not proved.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 May 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276606</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>