<?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>2013 (7) TMI 1074 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194385</link>
    <description>The appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court due to the appellant&#039;s delay in filing the writ petition and special leave petition, unsatisfactory explanations for the delay, and misleading conduct. The Court noted the appellant&#039;s inaction in obtaining possession of the acquired land, the development and rehabilitation of slum dwellers on the land, and the appellant&#039;s suppression of material facts. The appellant&#039;s prayer for a mandamus to deliver possession was rejected, and the High Court&#039;s order directing the handover of built-up area free of cost was upheld, emphasizing the appellant&#039;s agreement to the arrangement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Aug 2023 15:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=488357" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (7) TMI 1074 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194385</link>
      <description>The appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court due to the appellant&#039;s delay in filing the writ petition and special leave petition, unsatisfactory explanations for the delay, and misleading conduct. The Court noted the appellant&#039;s inaction in obtaining possession of the acquired land, the development and rehabilitation of slum dwellers on the land, and the appellant&#039;s suppression of material facts. The appellant&#039;s prayer for a mandamus to deliver possession was rejected, and the High Court&#039;s order directing the handover of built-up area free of cost was upheld, emphasizing the appellant&#039;s agreement to the arrangement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194385</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>