<?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>2016 (3) TMI 1217 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192709</link>
    <description>A retrospective validating amendment may remove the legal basis of an earlier judgment if the legislature has competence and cures the defect identified by the court; a bare legislative declaration cannot annul a decision, but a change in the underlying legal foundation can alter the result. On that footing, the Goa Amendment Act, 2009 deleted the contractual embargo on construction and thereby displaced the premise of the earlier ruling. The amendment was also not repugnant to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 because it did not create a direct and irreconcilable conflict with the Central law. The validity of the State amendment was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Jun 2017 10:02:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=472176" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 1217 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192709</link>
      <description>A retrospective validating amendment may remove the legal basis of an earlier judgment if the legislature has competence and cures the defect identified by the court; a bare legislative declaration cannot annul a decision, but a change in the underlying legal foundation can alter the result. On that footing, the Goa Amendment Act, 2009 deleted the contractual embargo on construction and thereby displaced the premise of the earlier ruling. The amendment was also not repugnant to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 because it did not create a direct and irreconcilable conflict with the Central law. The validity of the State amendment was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192709</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>