https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276776 A memorandum of understanding arising from a family arrangement was held too uncertain to be specifically enforced where only the parties' one-fourth shares were definite and the remaining terms on joint development, builder selection, built-up area allocation, and compensation were left for future negotiation. The Court applied the limits under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the rule that a contract with essential terms left open, or requiring continuous supervision, cannot be enforced specifically. As the suit was framed as one for specific performance of an incomplete and indeterminate arrangement, the plaint was liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The ascertainable share arrangement, if any, could be pursued in partition proceedings. en-us Tue, 10 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Nov 2018 10:46:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276776 A memorandum of understanding arising from a family arrangement was held too uncertain to be specifically enforced where only the parties' one-fourth shares were definite and the remaining terms on joint development, builder selection, built-up area allocation, and compensation were left for future negotiation. The Court applied the limits under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the rule that a contract with essential terms left open, or requiring continuous supervision, cannot be enforced specifically. As the suit was framed as one for specific performance of an incomplete and indeterminate arrangement, the plaint was liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The ascertainable share arrangement, if any, could be pursued in partition proceedings. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 10 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276776