<?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 (11) TMI 1288 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268479</link>
    <description>Public interest challenges to a tourism project were not rejected solely for delay or lack of bona fides, although the petitioners&#039; conduct remained relevant to the merits. The Court also declined to invalidate the lease in its entirety, finding that the record showed only a limited portion of the land to be lake-related, while the rest had been identified for development, and that the later wetland rules did not retrospectively undo the earlier lease. However, a 99-year lease was held to be excessive under the applicable rules, so the arrangement was severed and the lease term reduced to 30 years, with protected carve-outs for the promenade and specified land parcels.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2015 23:11:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=406653" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 1288 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268479</link>
      <description>Public interest challenges to a tourism project were not rejected solely for delay or lack of bona fides, although the petitioners&#039; conduct remained relevant to the merits. The Court also declined to invalidate the lease in its entirety, finding that the record showed only a limited portion of the land to be lake-related, while the rest had been identified for development, and that the later wetland rules did not retrospectively undo the earlier lease. However, a 99-year lease was held to be excessive under the applicable rules, so the arrangement was severed and the lease term reduced to 30 years, with protected carve-outs for the promenade and specified land parcels.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268479</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>