<?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>2015 (10) TMI 2532 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186526</link>
    <description>Section 108 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act was treated as conferring a suo motu revisional power on the State Government that could be exercised to correct a miscarriage of justice, so the limitation objection to the Minister&#039;s revision was rejected. The Court also held that the auction purchaser could not claim protection as a bona fide third party because the sale was subject to statutory procedure and confirmation, and the confirmation was made after repayment of the principal amount and within a waiver framework. The auction sale confirmation was therefore illegal, the High Court&#039;s interference with the Minister&#039;s order was unsustainable, and possession was directed to be restored to the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2016 14:57:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=441836" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 2532 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186526</link>
      <description>Section 108 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act was treated as conferring a suo motu revisional power on the State Government that could be exercised to correct a miscarriage of justice, so the limitation objection to the Minister&#039;s revision was rejected. The Court also held that the auction purchaser could not claim protection as a bona fide third party because the sale was subject to statutory procedure and confirmation, and the confirmation was made after repayment of the principal amount and within a waiver framework. The auction sale confirmation was therefore illegal, the High Court&#039;s interference with the Minister&#039;s order was unsustainable, and possession was directed to be restored to the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186526</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>