https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772971 Specific performance was refused because the appellants failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The evidence of financial capacity, including bank entries and related documents, did not satisfactorily show that the balance sale consideration was available when required. The Court also noted that the appellants did not voluntarily deposit the balance amount to demonstrate bona fides. Given the notices exchanged, the long lapse of time, and the surrounding facts, the equitable relief of specific performance was held inappropriate, and the refusal to decree the suit was upheld. en-us Mon, 02 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Jun 2025 07:57:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772971 Specific performance was refused because the appellants failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The evidence of financial capacity, including bank entries and related documents, did not satisfactorily show that the balance sale consideration was available when required. The Court also noted that the appellants did not voluntarily deposit the balance amount to demonstrate bona fides. Given the notices exchanged, the long lapse of time, and the surrounding facts, the equitable relief of specific performance was held inappropriate, and the refusal to decree the suit was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 02 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772971