<?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>2005 (8) TMI 681 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175817</link>
    <description>A final writ direction granting equitable interest at 12% per annum from the date possession was taken, once acted upon and incorporated into the acquisition award, bound the parties in later land acquisition proceedings. The principle of res judicata applies to subsequent stages of the same matter and to writ proceedings, so the entitlement could not be reopened after the earlier order had attained finality. An appellate court under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, could not restrict interest to a later notification date, nor could the High Court ignore an operative writ direction or decide outside the pleadings once the award had been implemented and left unchallenged.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2015 19:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=407846" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (8) TMI 681 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175817</link>
      <description>A final writ direction granting equitable interest at 12% per annum from the date possession was taken, once acted upon and incorporated into the acquisition award, bound the parties in later land acquisition proceedings. The principle of res judicata applies to subsequent stages of the same matter and to writ proceedings, so the entitlement could not be reopened after the earlier order had attained finality. An appellate court under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, could not restrict interest to a later notification date, nor could the High Court ignore an operative writ direction or decide outside the pleadings once the award had been implemented and left unchallenged.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175817</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>