https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459322 The appeal was dismissed by the HC, affirming the Company Court's decision that the shortfall in land delivery was insubstantial, being less than 5% of the total area. The Court held that the sale terms were clear, emphasizing the composite nature of the offer and the purchaser's responsibility for due diligence. The appellant's arguments for separate plot consideration and reliance on pending appeals were rejected, with the Court underscoring the binding nature of previous judgments and the importance of adhering to sale conditions. The decision reinforced that discrepancies in land measurement did not warrant a refund under the agreed terms. en-us Tue, 15 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Dec 2024 18:08:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459322 The appeal was dismissed by the HC, affirming the Company Court's decision that the shortfall in land delivery was insubstantial, being less than 5% of the total area. The Court held that the sale terms were clear, emphasizing the composite nature of the offer and the purchaser's responsibility for due diligence. The appellant's arguments for separate plot consideration and reliance on pending appeals were rejected, with the Court underscoring the binding nature of previous judgments and the importance of adhering to sale conditions. The decision reinforced that discrepancies in land measurement did not warrant a refund under the agreed terms. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 15 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459322