<?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>2017 (11) TMI 1714 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275312</link>
    <description>Government land must ordinarily be settled through open advertisement and competitive public auction to secure fairness and the best price in public interest. Private negotiations or equitable claims did not create an enforceable right where no bid had been submitted, the provisional acceptance had been cancelled without challenge, and post-cancellation offers were legally ineffective. A change in permissible land use from commercial to residential altered the basis of the original auction and required a fresh tender. The long delay further supported public auction rather than negotiated settlement. Claims for settlement were rejected; only limited interest on one deposit and refund of the other deposit without interest were granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2018 06:41:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=536027" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 1714 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275312</link>
      <description>Government land must ordinarily be settled through open advertisement and competitive public auction to secure fairness and the best price in public interest. Private negotiations or equitable claims did not create an enforceable right where no bid had been submitted, the provisional acceptance had been cancelled without challenge, and post-cancellation offers were legally ineffective. A change in permissible land use from commercial to residential altered the basis of the original auction and required a fresh tender. The long delay further supported public auction rather than negotiated settlement. Claims for settlement were rejected; only limited interest on one deposit and refund of the other deposit without interest were granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275312</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>