https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298432 The Privy Council dismissed the cross-appeal for specific performance of the 1903 contract due to significant delay since its execution, emphasizing the importance of timely enforcement of contractual rights. The suit for specific performance filed in 1913 was found barred by limitation as the Defendant allegedly refused to deliver the remaining sites in 1904 or 1905. The Court ruled that introducing a new case based on a different contract in 1912 through amendments was impermissible. Costs were awarded to the Defendant in all courts involved. en-us Fri, 28 Jan 1921 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Nov 2021 17:48:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298432 The Privy Council dismissed the cross-appeal for specific performance of the 1903 contract due to significant delay since its execution, emphasizing the importance of timely enforcement of contractual rights. The suit for specific performance filed in 1913 was found barred by limitation as the Defendant allegedly refused to deliver the remaining sites in 1904 or 1905. The Court ruled that introducing a new case based on a different contract in 1912 through amendments was impermissible. Costs were awarded to the Defendant in all courts involved. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 28 Jan 1921 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298432