<?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>2009 (1) TMI 932 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299888</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the decisions of the State Commission and National Commission. The original order of the District Forum was reinstated, with a clarification that the appellant should execute the sale deed upon payment of the remaining balance due, if not already done. The judgment focused on upholding the terms of the agreement and ensuring adherence to contractual obligations between the parties involved.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Jan 2022 15:47:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=666071" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 932 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299888</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the decisions of the State Commission and National Commission. The original order of the District Forum was reinstated, with a clarification that the appellant should execute the sale deed upon payment of the remaining balance due, if not already done. The judgment focused on upholding the terms of the agreement and ensuring adherence to contractual obligations between the parties involved.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299888</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>