<?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>2011 (2) TMI 1585 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290751</link>
    <description>Article 14 and public law fairness do not rewrite the express terms of a freely entered commercial contract with the State. A tender-based contractual arrangement remains governed by the contract and the law of contract, even though the State must act fairly and reasonably. Because the contract was determinable under its own terms, specific enforcement was barred and interim injunction could not be granted to restrain its termination. The appropriate remedy for any wrongful termination lay in damages, not continuation of the contract through interim protection. The refusal of interim relief was therefore consistent with the statutory limits on enforcement and injunction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2020 16:13:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=625114" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (2) TMI 1585 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290751</link>
      <description>Article 14 and public law fairness do not rewrite the express terms of a freely entered commercial contract with the State. A tender-based contractual arrangement remains governed by the contract and the law of contract, even though the State must act fairly and reasonably. Because the contract was determinable under its own terms, specific enforcement was barred and interim injunction could not be granted to restrain its termination. The appropriate remedy for any wrongful termination lay in damages, not continuation of the contract through interim protection. The refusal of interim relief was therefore consistent with the statutory limits on enforcement and injunction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290751</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>