<?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>1972 (10) TMI 134 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277225</link>
    <description>Tender acceptance subject to reserved conditions, including the power to split the tender, can still create a concluded contract even without a formal agreement where the counter-offer is accepted without asserting exclusive entitlement; refusal to perform on that basis constitutes breach. Equitable set-off is available when the cross-demand arises from the same transaction and it would be unjust to require a separate suit, with the relevant date being the filing of the plaintiff&#039;s suit rather than the later written statement. The defendant was permitted to raise the plea subject to payment of court fee and costs, and only to the extent of the plaintiff&#039;s claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Oct 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2018 13:19:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=544613" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (10) TMI 134 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277225</link>
      <description>Tender acceptance subject to reserved conditions, including the power to split the tender, can still create a concluded contract even without a formal agreement where the counter-offer is accepted without asserting exclusive entitlement; refusal to perform on that basis constitutes breach. Equitable set-off is available when the cross-demand arises from the same transaction and it would be unjust to require a separate suit, with the relevant date being the filing of the plaintiff&#039;s suit rather than the later written statement. The defendant was permitted to raise the plea subject to payment of court fee and costs, and only to the extent of the plaintiff&#039;s claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Oct 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277225</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>