<?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>2012 (12) TMI 993 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173528</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court upheld the High Court&#039;s decision to direct the Charity Commissioner to proceed with the auction of Trust land, emphasizing the protection of the trust&#039;s interests. Respondent No.1 was rightly impleaded to prevent collusion, and the petitioners&#039; suppression of material facts led to the denial of special leave to appeal. The conduct of the petitioners and trustees was criticized, leading to a fresh auction being ordered by the High Court. The petitioners&#039; claim for specific performance was rejected, and the Charity Commissioner was instructed to re-evaluate the sale, ensuring a minimum price of Rs. 3.87 crore.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Jan 2018 10:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=397739" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (12) TMI 993 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173528</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court upheld the High Court&#039;s decision to direct the Charity Commissioner to proceed with the auction of Trust land, emphasizing the protection of the trust&#039;s interests. Respondent No.1 was rightly impleaded to prevent collusion, and the petitioners&#039; suppression of material facts led to the denial of special leave to appeal. The conduct of the petitioners and trustees was criticized, leading to a fresh auction being ordered by the High Court. The petitioners&#039; claim for specific performance was rejected, and the Charity Commissioner was instructed to re-evaluate the sale, ensuring a minimum price of Rs. 3.87 crore.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173528</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>