<?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>1999 (7) TMI 666 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173715</link>
    <description>Mandatory municipal procedure, lawful authority and proper contract execution were required before any allotment of a public park for an underground shopping complex; the document states that the resolutions, agreement and allotment were invalid because the statutory requirements were treated as mandatory and were not complied with. Conversion of a historical public park into a commercial underground complex was also said to offend the public trust doctrine, environmental obligations and applicable planning law, because the park had to retain its essential public character and could not be diverted for private commercial exploitation. Equity could not validate the illegality, although relief was limited to retaining a portion for parking and restoring the remaining park area.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2015 16:17:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=398150" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (7) TMI 666 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173715</link>
      <description>Mandatory municipal procedure, lawful authority and proper contract execution were required before any allotment of a public park for an underground shopping complex; the document states that the resolutions, agreement and allotment were invalid because the statutory requirements were treated as mandatory and were not complied with. Conversion of a historical public park into a commercial underground complex was also said to offend the public trust doctrine, environmental obligations and applicable planning law, because the park had to retain its essential public character and could not be diverted for private commercial exploitation. Equity could not validate the illegality, although relief was limited to retaining a portion for parking and restoring the remaining park area.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173715</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>