https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111764 An earlier communication did not create a concluded contract for allotment at the earlier rate where the allottee did not accept it by payment, the deposited amount was refunded and encashed without objection, and the later allotment was accepted at the prevailing rate through payment, affidavit and execution of the lease deed. On those facts, charging the prevailing market price on the date of allotment was neither discriminatory nor an unfair trade practice, and no valid claim arose to the earlier rate or refund of the differential amount. The doctrine of legitimate expectation was held inapplicable because the authority acted in accordance with the scheme and without unfairness. en-us Thu, 10 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Aug 2013 16:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111764 An earlier communication did not create a concluded contract for allotment at the earlier rate where the allottee did not accept it by payment, the deposited amount was refunded and encashed without objection, and the later allotment was accepted at the prevailing rate through payment, affidavit and execution of the lease deed. On those facts, charging the prevailing market price on the date of allotment was neither discriminatory nor an unfair trade practice, and no valid claim arose to the earlier rate or refund of the differential amount. The doctrine of legitimate expectation was held inapplicable because the authority acted in accordance with the scheme and without unfairness. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 10 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111764