<?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>1996 (8) TMI 573 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464090</link>
    <description>A bank draft tendered at the time fixed for registration was treated as effective payment equivalent to cash-in-hand for the contractual obligation to pay the balance sale consideration. The vendor&#039;s refusal to accept the draft was held to constitute breach of the agreement, and the decree for specific performance was left undisturbed because no manifest error of law was shown. The contention that payment by bank draft did not satisfy the agreement was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Oct 2025 13:36:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=856256" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (8) TMI 573 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464090</link>
      <description>A bank draft tendered at the time fixed for registration was treated as effective payment equivalent to cash-in-hand for the contractual obligation to pay the balance sale consideration. The vendor&#039;s refusal to accept the draft was held to constitute breach of the agreement, and the decree for specific performance was left undisturbed because no manifest error of law was shown. The contention that payment by bank draft did not satisfy the agreement was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464090</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>