TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner had locus standi to challenge the cancellation of allotment and the eviction proceedings, and whether interference under Article 226 was warranted in the absence of any statutory violation or unreasonableness in the respondent's action.
Analysis: The petitioner's claim was founded on the later amalgamation of the original allottee company, but the cancellation of the allotment had already been made earlier on account of non-compliance with the allotment conditions, including failure to commence and complete construction within the stipulated time. The challenge was also weakened by the absence of any convincing explanation for the non-implementation of the project. In writ jurisdiction, interference with action taken by a statutory corporation is limited, and the Court will not sit in appeal over such action unless there is a clear statutory infraction or the action is shown to be arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair. On the facts, no such illegality or unreasonableness was established.
Conclusion: The petitioner failed to establish locus standi or any ground for judicial interference, and the challenge to the cancellation and eviction action was not sustainable.
TaxTMI 
