<?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>2006 (4) TMI 515 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178336</link>
    <description>A bona fide public interest litigation can trigger res judicata and constructive res judicata under Explanation VI to Section 11 CPC, preventing a renewed challenge to the same framework agreement, alleged excess acquisition, and project purpose where those questions were directly raised and decided earlier. The land acquisition for the integrated infrastructure corridor was treated as part of a broader public infrastructure scheme, including roads, interchanges, townships and allied facilities, and was found to fall within the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966. Writ directions requiring fair implementation of the upheld project were not viewed as specific performance, but as a legitimate restraint against arbitrary obstruction by the State.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Mar 2024 12:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=415138" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (4) TMI 515 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178336</link>
      <description>A bona fide public interest litigation can trigger res judicata and constructive res judicata under Explanation VI to Section 11 CPC, preventing a renewed challenge to the same framework agreement, alleged excess acquisition, and project purpose where those questions were directly raised and decided earlier. The land acquisition for the integrated infrastructure corridor was treated as part of a broader public infrastructure scheme, including roads, interchanges, townships and allied facilities, and was found to fall within the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966. Writ directions requiring fair implementation of the upheld project were not viewed as specific performance, but as a legitimate restraint against arbitrary obstruction by the State.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178336</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>