<?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>1970 (8) TMI 84 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168298</link>
    <description>The Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 was upheld on the basis of pith and substance: its dominant purpose was planned industrial development, and land acquisition was only an auxiliary incident within the State&#039;s legislative field. The Corporation created under the Act was not a trading corporation because it functioned as a statutory instrumentality for industrial estates and amenities, with commercial powers only ancillary to that purpose and no shareholder profit structure. The Act&#039;s special acquisition and compensation procedure was also valid, as it provided its own scheme for public industrial purposes and did not create unconstitutional procedural discrimination merely because it differed from the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Oct 2025 15:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=376162" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1970 (8) TMI 84 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168298</link>
      <description>The Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 was upheld on the basis of pith and substance: its dominant purpose was planned industrial development, and land acquisition was only an auxiliary incident within the State&#039;s legislative field. The Corporation created under the Act was not a trading corporation because it functioned as a statutory instrumentality for industrial estates and amenities, with commercial powers only ancillary to that purpose and no shareholder profit structure. The Act&#039;s special acquisition and compensation procedure was also valid, as it provided its own scheme for public industrial purposes and did not create unconstitutional procedural discrimination merely because it differed from the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168298</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>