<?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>2002 (1) TMI 37 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12688</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court addressed the modification of a court order regarding possession of a property and payment of interest. The court upheld the abrogation of the purchase order due to non-compliance with statutory provisions, directing the appropriate authority to issue a declaration and deliver possession to the vendor within a specified timeline. It clarified that the vendor&#039;s rights under the agreement to sell would prevail without impediment once the order of pre-emptive purchase was abrogated, and interest could not be charged on the balance sale consideration received during legal proceedings. The judgment balanced the rights and liabilities of all parties involved in the dispute effectively.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 May 2009 11:52:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=51699" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (1) TMI 37 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12688</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court addressed the modification of a court order regarding possession of a property and payment of interest. The court upheld the abrogation of the purchase order due to non-compliance with statutory provisions, directing the appropriate authority to issue a declaration and deliver possession to the vendor within a specified timeline. It clarified that the vendor&#039;s rights under the agreement to sell would prevail without impediment once the order of pre-emptive purchase was abrogated, and interest could not be charged on the balance sale consideration received during legal proceedings. The judgment balanced the rights and liabilities of all parties involved in the dispute effectively.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12688</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>