<?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>1977 (11) TMI 137 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172774</link>
    <description>Under the Maharashtra minor mineral lease scheme, an appellate authority may reappraise the record and correct a grant made without independent consideration of rival applications; technical errors such as delayed proof of financial standing or a minor variation in a co-operative society&#039;s name do not necessarily invalidate the application where identity is clear and no prejudice is shown. The discussion also notes that, for minor minerals, no absolute priority rule displaces permissible preference for a co-operative society where the statutory scheme allows choice among applicants. The appellate interference restoring fresh consideration on merits was therefore treated as valid, and the independent assessment requirement remained central.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:50:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=395188" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (11) TMI 137 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172774</link>
      <description>Under the Maharashtra minor mineral lease scheme, an appellate authority may reappraise the record and correct a grant made without independent consideration of rival applications; technical errors such as delayed proof of financial standing or a minor variation in a co-operative society&#039;s name do not necessarily invalidate the application where identity is clear and no prejudice is shown. The discussion also notes that, for minor minerals, no absolute priority rule displaces permissible preference for a co-operative society where the statutory scheme allows choice among applicants. The appellate interference restoring fresh consideration on merits was therefore treated as valid, and the independent assessment requirement remained central.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172774</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>