https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769397 Reciprocal contractual obligations under an allotment letter required HUDCO to secure statutory approvals and execute the sub-lease only after the first instalment and necessary clearances were in place. Because HUDCO failed to obtain the approvals and could not validly hand over possession, its breach justified setting aside forfeiture and directing refund of the principal amount paid, including related deposit components. On interest, although Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits discretionary relief, the claimant's conduct, including non-compliance with court directions and forum changes, warranted denial of equitable interest, subject only to conditional default interest if the refund was not made within the stipulated time. en-us Thu, 13 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Apr 2025 08:53:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769397 Reciprocal contractual obligations under an allotment letter required HUDCO to secure statutory approvals and execute the sub-lease only after the first instalment and necessary clearances were in place. Because HUDCO failed to obtain the approvals and could not validly hand over possession, its breach justified setting aside forfeiture and directing refund of the principal amount paid, including related deposit components. On interest, although Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits discretionary relief, the claimant's conduct, including non-compliance with court directions and forum changes, warranted denial of equitable interest, subject only to conditional default interest if the refund was not made within the stipulated time. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 13 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769397