<?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>2008 (4) TMI 724 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176021</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court. The doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation were deemed inapplicable, and the disputed document was not sufficient to warrant a writ petition. The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Dec 2015 11:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=408421" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (4) TMI 724 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176021</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court. The doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation were deemed inapplicable, and the disputed document was not sufficient to warrant a writ petition. The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176021</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>