https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301325 Where a sale agreement fixed a date for execution, limitation under Article 54 ran from that date, and pending permission proceedings did not extend time; the suit was therefore barred by limitation. The plaintiffs also failed to prove the continuous readiness and willingness required by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, because they did not comply with instalment and related contractual obligations and remained inactive for years, so specific performance was refused. Although equitable restitution remained available after refusal of specific performance, the monetary relief awarded by the HC was enhanced in favour of the plaintiffs. en-us Wed, 06 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 27 Mar 2022 09:26:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301325 Where a sale agreement fixed a date for execution, limitation under Article 54 ran from that date, and pending permission proceedings did not extend time; the suit was therefore barred by limitation. The plaintiffs also failed to prove the continuous readiness and willingness required by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, because they did not comply with instalment and related contractual obligations and remained inactive for years, so specific performance was refused. Although equitable restitution remained available after refusal of specific performance, the monetary relief awarded by the HC was enhanced in favour of the plaintiffs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 06 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301325