<?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>1995 (9) TMI 411 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312149</link>
    <description>Non-registration of an agreement to sell, under the local amendment to Section 17 of the Registration Act, did not by itself bar a suit for specific performance because Section 49 had not been correspondingly amended, so the agreement could still be relied on for enforcement. A suit for specific performance was also maintainable against both the vendor and a subsequent purchaser, with the transferee liable to join in the conveyance. The trial court&#039;s refusal of temporary injunction was set aside because it rested on incorrect legal premises and inadequate evaluation of the documentary and factual material, and the injunction issue was remanded for fresh consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Feb 2024 12:10:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=742380" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (9) TMI 411 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312149</link>
      <description>Non-registration of an agreement to sell, under the local amendment to Section 17 of the Registration Act, did not by itself bar a suit for specific performance because Section 49 had not been correspondingly amended, so the agreement could still be relied on for enforcement. A suit for specific performance was also maintainable against both the vendor and a subsequent purchaser, with the transferee liable to join in the conveyance. The trial court&#039;s refusal of temporary injunction was set aside because it rested on incorrect legal premises and inadequate evaluation of the documentary and factual material, and the injunction issue was remanded for fresh consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312149</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>