<?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>2018 (2) TMI 1976 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287981</link>
    <description>The SC held that a commercial contract must be construed according to its language, context, surrounding correspondence, and course of dealing, and not by importing an external statutory definition. On that approach, the expression &quot;fuel&quot; in the amended power purchase agreement was confined to natural gas in its natural form; RLNG was not treated as synonymous with natural gas, and occasional permissive use in exceptional circumstances did not expand the contractual meaning or amount to waiver. The appellate tribunal&#039;s contrary view was set aside and the commission&#039;s interpretation of the contract was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 May 2020 09:50:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=612774" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 1976 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287981</link>
      <description>The SC held that a commercial contract must be construed according to its language, context, surrounding correspondence, and course of dealing, and not by importing an external statutory definition. On that approach, the expression &quot;fuel&quot; in the amended power purchase agreement was confined to natural gas in its natural form; RLNG was not treated as synonymous with natural gas, and occasional permissive use in exceptional circumstances did not expand the contractual meaning or amount to waiver. The appellate tribunal&#039;s contrary view was set aside and the commission&#039;s interpretation of the contract was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287981</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>