https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112121 Land allotted for an industrial unit could not be resumed on the basis of an unsigned and unenforceable allotment agreement, and the corporation had no independent enforceable right to invoke resumption machinery. Leave to resume was not shown to be barred by limitation because the relevant enquiry is whether the proposed proceeding would itself be time-barred. No sufficient breach was established to justify cancellation and resumption where the unit had been partially implemented and secured creditors held charges. Promissory estoppel also operated against the Government after it permitted creation of mortgages and charges, preventing resumption that would prejudice financial institutions. en-us Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112121 Land allotted for an industrial unit could not be resumed on the basis of an unsigned and unenforceable allotment agreement, and the corporation had no independent enforceable right to invoke resumption machinery. Leave to resume was not shown to be barred by limitation because the relevant enquiry is whether the proposed proceeding would itself be time-barred. No sufficient breach was established to justify cancellation and resumption where the unit had been partially implemented and secured creditors held charges. Promissory estoppel also operated against the Government after it permitted creation of mortgages and charges, preventing resumption that would prejudice financial institutions. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112121