https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761724 Review was justified because the earlier judgment rested on apparent factual and interpretative errors in construing the agreements, including the effect of Clause 21 and non-production of documents under Clause 3, and those errors materially affected limitation and specific performance. Limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act ran from notice of refusal only because no date for performance of the contract as a whole was fixed; the suit filed after the reply dated 14 April 2000 was therefore within time. Readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act was proved without the need for actual tender, and the petitioner remained entitled to specific performance since compensation was not shown to be adequate. A transfer made during pendency of the review was subject to lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. en-us Fri, 08 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Nov 2024 08:38:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761724 Review was justified because the earlier judgment rested on apparent factual and interpretative errors in construing the agreements, including the effect of Clause 21 and non-production of documents under Clause 3, and those errors materially affected limitation and specific performance. Limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act ran from notice of refusal only because no date for performance of the contract as a whole was fixed; the suit filed after the reply dated 14 April 2000 was therefore within time. Readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act was proved without the need for actual tender, and the petitioner remained entitled to specific performance since compensation was not shown to be adequate. A transfer made during pendency of the review was subject to lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 08 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761724