<?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>1996 (10) TMI 507 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199980</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court judgment and dismissing the respondent&#039;s writ petition related to non-payment of industrial plot installments. The Court held that the High Court&#039;s consideration of financial difficulties was improper in a writ petition, emphasizing that Article 226 is for judicial review, not to grant favors. It was ruled that without procedural irregularities, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to intervene in the matter.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2018 12:46:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=513014" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (10) TMI 507 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199980</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court judgment and dismissing the respondent&#039;s writ petition related to non-payment of industrial plot installments. The Court held that the High Court&#039;s consideration of financial difficulties was improper in a writ petition, emphasizing that Article 226 is for judicial review, not to grant favors. It was ruled that without procedural irregularities, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to intervene in the matter.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199980</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>