The Supreme Court observed that when both the buyer and seller were at fault in performance of a contract, it would be impermissible to order forfeiture of the earnest money deposited by the buyer, as it would unjustly enrich the seller. Read more: zurl.co/NBhCO #SupremeCourt

You may also like...

• 

  Day 3 before the nine-judge Bench in the Supreme Court in the Sabarimala reference is set to resume shortly

  April 9, 2026

   by Sekar Reporter · Published April 9, 2026

• 

  Justice T.S.Sivagnanam, and V.Bhavani Subbaroyan while answering in the favour of the assessee held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee is a revenue expenditure and not a capital expenditure and there is no justification in remanding the matter to the Tribunal or to any other Lower Authority.

  August 12, 2020

   by Sekar Reporter · Published August 12, 2020

• 

  THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH W.P.No.29867 of 2019 & WMP.No.29781 of 2019 M/s.RKR.Gold P. Ltd., For Petitioner           : Mr.A.S.Sriraman                                  For Respondent        : Mr.A.P.Srinivas,   Senior Standing Counsel O R D E R. In the absence of a full and true disclosure by the petitioner at the first instance, the assumption of jurisdiction by the assessing authority beyond the period of four years is not barred by limitation, and cannot be faulted. The impugned order is confirmed and the writ petition is dismissed. No

  October 27, 2022

   by Sekar Reporter · Published October 27, 2022