<?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>2002 (8) TMI 877 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285558</link>
    <description>Readiness and willingness in a specific performance claim must be tested against the contract as actually agreed, and not against a later demand for a different title position; on the stated facts, the plaintiff failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness. The short completion period, forfeiture clause, and surrounding mortgage proceedings showed that time was of the essence, so equitable relief could be refused where enforcement would cause hardship and upset the contractual bargain. A subsequent purchaser could still contest readiness and willingness in appeal, and additional evidence relevant to discretion was admitted. A transfer made after institution of the suit remained subject to lis pendens, so bona fide purchaser protection was unavailable; the specific performance decree was set aside and replaced with limited monetary relief against the vendor.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Jan 2020 15:29:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=600599" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (8) TMI 877 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285558</link>
      <description>Readiness and willingness in a specific performance claim must be tested against the contract as actually agreed, and not against a later demand for a different title position; on the stated facts, the plaintiff failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness. The short completion period, forfeiture clause, and surrounding mortgage proceedings showed that time was of the essence, so equitable relief could be refused where enforcement would cause hardship and upset the contractual bargain. A subsequent purchaser could still contest readiness and willingness in appeal, and additional evidence relevant to discretion was admitted. A transfer made after institution of the suit remained subject to lis pendens, so bona fide purchaser protection was unavailable; the specific performance decree was set aside and replaced with limited monetary relief against the vendor.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285558</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>