https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195464 Special Leave Petitions challenging land acquisition proceedings were dismissed because the petitioners suppressed material facts about interim stay orders. The challenge had turned on whether the award was time-barred under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, but the period covered by judicial stays had to be excluded from the limitation computation. As the stay orders were not disclosed, the petitions lacked the frank and full disclosure required when invoking Article 136 discretionary relief. The non-disclosure amounted to suppression of material facts, making the petitions liable to rejection. en-us Mon, 29 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 Oct 2017 17:13:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195464 Special Leave Petitions challenging land acquisition proceedings were dismissed because the petitioners suppressed material facts about interim stay orders. The challenge had turned on whether the award was time-barred under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, but the period covered by judicial stays had to be excluded from the limitation computation. As the stay orders were not disclosed, the petitions lacked the frank and full disclosure required when invoking Article 136 discretionary relief. The non-disclosure amounted to suppression of material facts, making the petitions liable to rejection. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 29 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195464