https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192823 Section 6(2) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act was treated as prescribing a directory mode and time for vacancy intimation, because the scheme distinguished the substantive intimation from its procedural service requirement and the penal provision attached consequences to delay rather than to registered-post service itself. A later valid intimation could therefore still support action under Section 6(3), and the requisition was not upheld on that objection. The Court nevertheless refused writ relief in the exercise of discretion, noting the petitioner's inconsistent stands and the equities arising from the existing occupation of the premises, so the requisition order remained undisturbed. en-us Tue, 09 Sep 1958 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Jun 2017 18:48:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192823 Section 6(2) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act was treated as prescribing a directory mode and time for vacancy intimation, because the scheme distinguished the substantive intimation from its procedural service requirement and the penal provision attached consequences to delay rather than to registered-post service itself. A later valid intimation could therefore still support action under Section 6(3), and the requisition was not upheld on that objection. The Court nevertheless refused writ relief in the exercise of discretion, noting the petitioner's inconsistent stands and the equities arising from the existing occupation of the premises, so the requisition order remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 09 Sep 1958 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192823