https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465192 In Section 34 review, refusal of specific performance was sustained because the evidence showed only part-payment of consideration, the alleged cash payment was unproved, and the claimant was not shown to be ready and willing to pay the balance. The court found no perversity, lack of evidence, or patent illegality in that finding. The refund direction with interest was set aside because the contract itself prescribed the consequences of default, and the tribunal could not replace the parties' bargain with equity or fairness after finding the claimant in default. The offending portion was severable, so partial interference with the award was permitted. en-us Thu, 23 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Dec 2025 19:13:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465192 In Section 34 review, refusal of specific performance was sustained because the evidence showed only part-payment of consideration, the alleged cash payment was unproved, and the claimant was not shown to be ready and willing to pay the balance. The court found no perversity, lack of evidence, or patent illegality in that finding. The refund direction with interest was set aside because the contract itself prescribed the consequences of default, and the tribunal could not replace the parties' bargain with equity or fairness after finding the claimant in default. The offending portion was severable, so partial interference with the award was permitted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 23 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465192