<?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>SC affirmed decrees of specific performance, holding that presentation of a bank draft for the balance consideration satisfied the vendor&#039;s covenant to receive payment and equated to cash-in-hand since the vendor could compel payment from the drawee bank. Petitioner&#039;s refusal to accept the draft constituted a breach, and the lower courts&#039; findings that the draft was presented were upheld as not manifestly erroneous. Special leave petition was dismissed.</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>SC affirmed decrees of specific performance, holding that presentation of a bank draft for the balance consideration satisfied the vendor&#039;s covenant to receive payment and equated to cash-in-hand since the vendor could compel payment from the drawee bank. Petitioner&#039;s refusal to accept the draft constituted a breach, and the lower courts&#039; findings that the draft was presented were upheld as not manifestly erroneous. Special leave petition was dismissed.</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>