<?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>2015 (10) TMI 2148 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266874</link>
    <description>The appeals were dismissed, affirming that the selection process was flawed, the inclusion of Om Metals was improper, and the Ministry of Home Affairs was justified in directing the cancellation of the agreement. The principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation did not apply, and the appellants were not entitled to insist on the issuance of the SEZ notification. The principles of natural justice were not violated in the impugned actions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2016 16:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=403147" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 2148 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266874</link>
      <description>The appeals were dismissed, affirming that the selection process was flawed, the inclusion of Om Metals was improper, and the Ministry of Home Affairs was justified in directing the cancellation of the agreement. The principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation did not apply, and the appellants were not entitled to insist on the issuance of the SEZ notification. The principles of natural justice were not violated in the impugned actions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266874</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>