https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158120 Acquisition of land for a Housing Board scheme for planned urban development and housing accommodation was treated as a matter of public utility under Article 226(6), with the expression construed broadly to cover welfare measures benefiting a substantial section of the public. The distinction between public purpose and public utility was rejected for interim relief purposes, so interim stay was barred. Independently, the court found that possession had already been taken, no substantial irreparable injury was shown, and the balance of convenience favoured the respondents. On both grounds, the interim restraint was held unwarranted. en-us Thu, 08 Nov 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:53:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158120 Acquisition of land for a Housing Board scheme for planned urban development and housing accommodation was treated as a matter of public utility under Article 226(6), with the expression construed broadly to cover welfare measures benefiting a substantial section of the public. The distinction between public purpose and public utility was rejected for interim relief purposes, so interim stay was barred. Independently, the court found that possession had already been taken, no substantial irreparable injury was shown, and the balance of convenience favoured the respondents. On both grounds, the interim restraint was held unwarranted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 08 Nov 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158120