<?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 (11) TMI 669 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188081</link>
    <description>Tentative resolutions by a public authority did not create an enforceable right to transfer tenements where no concluded contract, fixed sale terms, demanded consideration, or completed conveyance process existed. The scheme was treated as enabling rather than mandatory, so the appellants could not compel sale on the basis of preliminary corporate decisions. Promissory estoppel also failed because no completed representation bound the Corporation and public interest outweighed private expectation, particularly where the undertaking was loss-making and needed to preserve accommodation for in-service workers. The Corporation was therefore entitled to withdraw from the proposed sale, and no legal right to transfer arose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Feb 2024 16:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=448258" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 669 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188081</link>
      <description>Tentative resolutions by a public authority did not create an enforceable right to transfer tenements where no concluded contract, fixed sale terms, demanded consideration, or completed conveyance process existed. The scheme was treated as enabling rather than mandatory, so the appellants could not compel sale on the basis of preliminary corporate decisions. Promissory estoppel also failed because no completed representation bound the Corporation and public interest outweighed private expectation, particularly where the undertaking was loss-making and needed to preserve accommodation for in-service workers. The Corporation was therefore entitled to withdraw from the proposed sale, and no legal right to transfer arose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188081</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>