<?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>2005 (1) TMI 726 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197875</link>
    <description>Municipal permission and a building licence for a multi-storeyed structure were upheld because the governing allotment and planning regime did not bar such construction once the purchaser had obtained absolute title and the municipal sanction had been granted; the lease-cum-sale restrictions were confined to the subsisting lease period. The SC also treated the public interest petition as barred by delay and laches, noting substantial progress in construction, intervening third-party interests, and the settled principle that discretionary writ relief is inappropriate in such circumstances. The Division Bench order was set aside and the challenge to the permission and demolition direction failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 May 2024 16:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=504876" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (1) TMI 726 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197875</link>
      <description>Municipal permission and a building licence for a multi-storeyed structure were upheld because the governing allotment and planning regime did not bar such construction once the purchaser had obtained absolute title and the municipal sanction had been granted; the lease-cum-sale restrictions were confined to the subsisting lease period. The SC also treated the public interest petition as barred by delay and laches, noting substantial progress in construction, intervening third-party interests, and the settled principle that discretionary writ relief is inappropriate in such circumstances. The Division Bench order was set aside and the challenge to the permission and demolition direction failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197875</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>