https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277225 The appellate court concluded that a contract was indeed concluded between the parties, with the plaintiff breaching it by refusing to share the contract as per the tender conditions. The court held that the defendant could not automatically forfeit the deposit without proving actual damages. The defendant was allowed to claim an equitable set-off for damages suffered due to the breach, limited to Rs. 5,000. The court did not decide on the limitation issue but noted the defendant had filed a separate suit addressing it. The appeal was dismissed with modifications, allowing the defendant to file a proper written statement for equitable set-off. en-us Fri, 27 Oct 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Nov 2018 13:19:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277225 The appellate court concluded that a contract was indeed concluded between the parties, with the plaintiff breaching it by refusing to share the contract as per the tender conditions. The court held that the defendant could not automatically forfeit the deposit without proving actual damages. The defendant was allowed to claim an equitable set-off for damages suffered due to the breach, limited to Rs. 5,000. The court did not decide on the limitation issue but noted the defendant had filed a separate suit addressing it. The appeal was dismissed with modifications, allowing the defendant to file a proper written statement for equitable set-off. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 27 Oct 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277225