<?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>1964 (2) TMI 97 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200326</link>
    <description>Publication of a permit application satisfied the statutory disclosure requirement where the substance of the route was disclosed and no prejudice was shown; omission of some intermediate route points did not invalidate the notice. A challenge based on alleged non-compliance with the counter-signature procedure was not entertained in writ proceedings because it had not been raised before the transport authorities. A party who knew of an alleged defect in the Regional Transport Authority&#039;s composition but participated without objection was held to have acquiesced, and certiorari could be refused on implied waiver. The writ petition therefore failed on all substantive grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Feb 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:40:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=514720" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (2) TMI 97 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200326</link>
      <description>Publication of a permit application satisfied the statutory disclosure requirement where the substance of the route was disclosed and no prejudice was shown; omission of some intermediate route points did not invalidate the notice. A challenge based on alleged non-compliance with the counter-signature procedure was not entertained in writ proceedings because it had not been raised before the transport authorities. A party who knew of an alleged defect in the Regional Transport Authority&#039;s composition but participated without objection was held to have acquiesced, and certiorari could be refused on implied waiver. The writ petition therefore failed on all substantive grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Feb 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200326</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>