Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Supreme Court grants interim protection, halts land allotment, emphasizes status quo importance.</h1> <h3>Zenit Mataplast P. Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors.</h3> Zenit Mataplast P. Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. - 2009 AIR 2364, 2009 (14) SCR 403, 2009 (10) SCC 388, 2009 (12) JT 240, 2009 (12) SCALE 432 Issues Involved:1. Rejection of the appellant's application for land allotment.2. Alleged discriminatory allotment of land to respondents 4 and 5.3. Compliance with statutory provisions and regulations.4. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.5. Justification for interim relief.Detailed Analysis:1. Rejection of the appellant's application for land allotment:The appellant, a private limited company, applied for the allotment of 8000 sq. yards of adjacent vacant land on 30.11.2005. The Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (Corporation) rejected this application on 19.12.2005 without assigning any reason. The appellant contended that the rejection was arbitrary, especially since a part of Plot No. F-17 had been allotted to BSNL in 2004 without changing the land user.2. Alleged discriminatory allotment of land to respondents 4 and 5:Respondent No. 4, a major industrial company, sought land for a joint venture project with Renault. The Government of Maharashtra promised to provide land, and the Corporation changed the land user from open space to industrial area to facilitate this. The land measuring 17 acres was allotted to respondent No. 4 on 27.3.2006, and possession was handed over immediately. The appellant argued that this was done in undue haste, showing favoritism towards a big industrial house, violating Article 14 of the Constitution.3. Compliance with statutory provisions and regulations:The allotment of land is governed by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961, and the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (Disposal of Land) Regulations, 1975. Regulation 4 provides for disposal of land by public auction or individual applications, and Regulation 10 mandates that the Land Committee consider applications and pass appropriate orders. The appellant claimed that the Corporation did not follow these regulations and that the land should have been disposed of by auction.4. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution:The appellant alleged that the rejection of its application and the allotment to respondent No. 4 violated the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14. The appellant's application was made before respondent No. 4's, yet the latter's application was processed quickly and favorably. The Supreme Court noted that the Corporation and the Government acted in undue haste, which amounted to arbitrariness and violated Article 14.5. Justification for interim relief:The High Court rejected the appellant's application for interim relief, leading to this appeal. The Supreme Court emphasized that interim relief is granted based on prima facie findings to preserve the status quo and prevent the matter from becoming infructuous. The Court considered the principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. Given the undue haste in the allotment to respondent No. 4 and the appellant's ongoing efforts to secure the land, the Supreme Court found that the appellant deserved interim protection.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed, and the interim order passed by the Supreme Court on 21.7.2008 was to continue until the High Court decided the writ petition. The High Court was requested to expedite the hearing. The Supreme Court's observations on facts or law were not to adversely affect either party's case. The appeal was disposed of with no costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found