https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460702 A contract fixing a three-month period for payment of the balance consideration, with forfeiture on default, was treated as time-sensitive for limitation purposes, so Article 54 ran from the date fixed for performance and the suit filed after three years was barred. The substituted Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was held to be prospective because it introduced a substantive change and did not apply retrospectively. Specific performance was denied where the purchaser failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness within time. Section 12 could not be used to grant part-specific performance to overcome limitation, delay, or lack of contractual compliance. en-us Thu, 25 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Feb 2025 21:16:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460702 A contract fixing a three-month period for payment of the balance consideration, with forfeiture on default, was treated as time-sensitive for limitation purposes, so Article 54 ran from the date fixed for performance and the suit filed after three years was barred. The substituted Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was held to be prospective because it introduced a substantive change and did not apply retrospectively. Specific performance was denied where the purchaser failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness within time. Section 12 could not be used to grant part-specific performance to overcome limitation, delay, or lack of contractual compliance. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 25 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460702