<?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>2014 (4) TMI 1138 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183524</link>
    <description>Delay in filing the writ appeal/review was condoned where institutional delay and the public interest in adjudication on merits justified exercise of discretion under limitation law. Disposal of State land through tender was also tested against Article 14 standards of fairness, reasonableness, transparency, and public accountability, with emphasis that public authorities must secure the best reasonable price and protect the public exchequer. A grossly inadequate alienation of public property, including land affected by encroachment or inconvenience, was treated as impermissible under the public trust doctrine. The tender process was therefore held illegal and set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Jun 2016 15:08:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=431351" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (4) TMI 1138 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183524</link>
      <description>Delay in filing the writ appeal/review was condoned where institutional delay and the public interest in adjudication on merits justified exercise of discretion under limitation law. Disposal of State land through tender was also tested against Article 14 standards of fairness, reasonableness, transparency, and public accountability, with emphasis that public authorities must secure the best reasonable price and protect the public exchequer. A grossly inadequate alienation of public property, including land affected by encroachment or inconvenience, was treated as impermissible under the public trust doctrine. The tender process was therefore held illegal and set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183524</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>