<?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>1999 (7) TMI 677 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189050</link>
    <description>Government re-allotted a plot earlier allotted to one public sector oil company to another without notice, and later re-allotted it back, again without notice, raising breach of natural justice. The SC held that where its earlier direction underlying the re-allotment was subsequently recalled, restitution and restoration of status quo ante became mandatory on admitted facts; the party benefiting from the withdrawn order could not retain an advantage, especially after regaining its original plot. Applying the exception in S.L. Kapoor, the Court treated the position as one where only one lawful outcome was possible despite lack of notice. The application seeking restoration to the original allottee was allowed and the rival application was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2025 23:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=452996" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (7) TMI 677 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189050</link>
      <description>Government re-allotted a plot earlier allotted to one public sector oil company to another without notice, and later re-allotted it back, again without notice, raising breach of natural justice. The SC held that where its earlier direction underlying the re-allotment was subsequently recalled, restitution and restoration of status quo ante became mandatory on admitted facts; the party benefiting from the withdrawn order could not retain an advantage, especially after regaining its original plot. Applying the exception in S.L. Kapoor, the Court treated the position as one where only one lawful outcome was possible despite lack of notice. The application seeking restoration to the original allottee was allowed and the rival application was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189050</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>