<?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>2004 (4) TMI 58 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11088</link>
    <description>Completed pre-emptive purchase proceedings under Chapter XX-C are not liable to be upset for absence of prior hearing where possession has been taken, compensation has been paid and accepted without protest, and the auction sale has been confirmed before the later judgment in C. B. Gautam. The completed-transaction exception protects such acquisitions from challenge on natural justice grounds. An agreement to sell does not by itself confer a proprietary interest sufficient to challenge the acquisition where the owner has accepted compensation and does not dispute the purchase. On that basis, the challenge by intending purchasers failed for want of locus.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=50107" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (4) TMI 58 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11088</link>
      <description>Completed pre-emptive purchase proceedings under Chapter XX-C are not liable to be upset for absence of prior hearing where possession has been taken, compensation has been paid and accepted without protest, and the auction sale has been confirmed before the later judgment in C. B. Gautam. The completed-transaction exception protects such acquisitions from challenge on natural justice grounds. An agreement to sell does not by itself confer a proprietary interest sufficient to challenge the acquisition where the owner has accepted compensation and does not dispute the purchase. On that basis, the challenge by intending purchasers failed for want of locus.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11088</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>