<?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>1992 (12) TMI 236 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295312</link>
    <description>The SC dismissed the civil appeal with costs, affirming the Division Bench&#039;s judgment that time was the essence of the contract. The SC concurred that the plaintiffs breached the contract by not paying Rs. 98,000 by the specified date and were not ready and willing to perform their contractual obligations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Nov 2024 15:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=645333" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (12) TMI 236 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295312</link>
      <description>The SC dismissed the civil appeal with costs, affirming the Division Bench&#039;s judgment that time was the essence of the contract. The SC concurred that the plaintiffs breached the contract by not paying Rs. 98,000 by the specified date and were not ready and willing to perform their contractual obligations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295312</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>