<?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>2025 (5) TMI 311 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770039</link>
    <description>An express forfeiture clause can validly operate where the money paid is, in substance, earnest money securing performance and adjustable against the sale price on completion. Because the appellant failed to pay the balance consideration within the stipulated period, the vendors were entitled to forfeit the amount. Refund of earnest money is an alternative relief under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, but it must be specifically claimed in the plaint or by amendment; a general prayer for other reliefs does not authorise the court to grant refund on its own. The refund claim was therefore untenable and forfeiture was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 May 2025 12:46:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=819765" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 311 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770039</link>
      <description>An express forfeiture clause can validly operate where the money paid is, in substance, earnest money securing performance and adjustable against the sale price on completion. Because the appellant failed to pay the balance consideration within the stipulated period, the vendors were entitled to forfeit the amount. Refund of earnest money is an alternative relief under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, but it must be specifically claimed in the plaint or by amendment; a general prayer for other reliefs does not authorise the court to grant refund on its own. The refund claim was therefore untenable and forfeiture was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770039</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>