https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171096 Repeated challenges to substantially identical reliefs were barred by res judicata and the rule against parallel remedies, because the petitioner had pursued the civil suit, first writ proceedings and later writ petition on the same cause. A transmission scheme notified under Sections 28 and 29 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 was not liable to be struck down at the instance of a subsequent land purchaser, where the scheme had been duly published, no timely objection was raised, and substantial implementation had already occurred in public interest. The purchaser could not demand re-routing or shifting of towers merely because the line passed over its land. en-us Mon, 05 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Jul 2015 15:30:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171096 Repeated challenges to substantially identical reliefs were barred by res judicata and the rule against parallel remedies, because the petitioner had pursued the civil suit, first writ proceedings and later writ petition on the same cause. A transmission scheme notified under Sections 28 and 29 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 was not liable to be struck down at the instance of a subsequent land purchaser, where the scheme had been duly published, no timely objection was raised, and substantial implementation had already occurred in public interest. The purchaser could not demand re-routing or shifting of towers merely because the line passed over its land. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 05 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171096