<?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>1950 (3) TMI 36 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312667</link>
    <description>Specific performance of an agreement to assign a decree was upheld because the agreement was found duly executed, supported by unrebutted acknowledgment of consideration, and free from coercion. Compensation or damages in addition to specific performance could not be awarded without a specific pleading, notice to the defendant, and proof that such relief was necessary to do complete justice; the award was therefore set aside as unsupported and arbitrary. The appellate claim for refund and damages was also declined because the claimant had elected specific performance before the trial court and had not properly shifted to the alternative relief in appeal. The decree for specific performance was maintained, but damages were removed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Mar 1950 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2024 12:55:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=745410" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1950 (3) TMI 36 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312667</link>
      <description>Specific performance of an agreement to assign a decree was upheld because the agreement was found duly executed, supported by unrebutted acknowledgment of consideration, and free from coercion. Compensation or damages in addition to specific performance could not be awarded without a specific pleading, notice to the defendant, and proof that such relief was necessary to do complete justice; the award was therefore set aside as unsupported and arbitrary. The appellate claim for refund and damages was also declined because the claimant had elected specific performance before the trial court and had not properly shifted to the alternative relief in appeal. The decree for specific performance was maintained, but damages were removed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Mar 1950 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312667</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>