<?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>1995 (5) TMI 283 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198812</link>
    <description>Municipal demolition and sealing enforcement under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act requires action against the person responsible for unauthorised construction, while other aggrieved persons may pursue the statutory appellate remedy. Delegated officers may validly issue notices where statutory powers are delegated. Civil suits ordinarily cannot bypass the specialised appellate mechanism absent a jurisdictional error. Unauthorised, non-compoundable deviations cannot be condoned through discretionary enforcement. Planning distinctions based on road width, plot size, layout approval and infrastructure may satisfy Article 14. Interim injunction requires full disclosure and clean hands; parity cannot be claimed in illegality, and political assurances cannot create estoppel or legitimate expectation contrary to statute or public policy.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2018 16:17:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=508324" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (5) TMI 283 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198812</link>
      <description>Municipal demolition and sealing enforcement under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act requires action against the person responsible for unauthorised construction, while other aggrieved persons may pursue the statutory appellate remedy. Delegated officers may validly issue notices where statutory powers are delegated. Civil suits ordinarily cannot bypass the specialised appellate mechanism absent a jurisdictional error. Unauthorised, non-compoundable deviations cannot be condoned through discretionary enforcement. Planning distinctions based on road width, plot size, layout approval and infrastructure may satisfy Article 14. Interim injunction requires full disclosure and clean hands; parity cannot be claimed in illegality, and political assurances cannot create estoppel or legitimate expectation contrary to statute or public policy.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198812</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>