<?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>2004 (4) TMI 597 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179022</link>
    <description>Section 38 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act permits the Authority to lease, sell or otherwise transfer its property subject only to prescribed restrictions, conditions and limitations; where no applicable restriction is prescribed for the transaction, the general allotment rules do not curtail that power. An allotment of 1 acre 20 guntas for an industrial undertaking was not treated as a bulk allotment under Section 38-B, which operates in a different field and did not govern the transaction. A public interest challenge filed about three years after the allotment and sale deed was also held to suffer from delay and laches, and the sale in favour of the appellant was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2024 16:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=416841" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (4) TMI 597 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179022</link>
      <description>Section 38 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act permits the Authority to lease, sell or otherwise transfer its property subject only to prescribed restrictions, conditions and limitations; where no applicable restriction is prescribed for the transaction, the general allotment rules do not curtail that power. An allotment of 1 acre 20 guntas for an industrial undertaking was not treated as a bulk allotment under Section 38-B, which operates in a different field and did not govern the transaction. A public interest challenge filed about three years after the allotment and sale deed was also held to suffer from delay and laches, and the sale in favour of the appellant was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179022</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>