<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2009 (9) TMI 587 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113942</link>
    <description>The court held that the Land Acquisition Officer&#039;s failure to serve mandatory notices to the company violated the Land Acquisition Act. It directed the Officer to re-determine the compensation at Rs. 2,50,000 per acre, in line with other landowners&#039; compensation. The company court was deemed to have exclusive jurisdiction over claims involving the company under liquidation. The Land Acquisition Officer was instructed to pass a fresh award and deposit the differential amount with the court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Nov 2014 12:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150948" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (9) TMI 587 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113942</link>
      <description>The court held that the Land Acquisition Officer&#039;s failure to serve mandatory notices to the company violated the Land Acquisition Act. It directed the Officer to re-determine the compensation at Rs. 2,50,000 per acre, in line with other landowners&#039; compensation. The company court was deemed to have exclusive jurisdiction over claims involving the company under liquidation. The Land Acquisition Officer was instructed to pass a fresh award and deposit the differential amount with the court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113942</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>