<?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 (6) TMI 39 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17693</link>
    <description>A completed compulsory purchase under section 269UD was not disturbed in writ jurisdiction despite complaints of natural justice, because possession had been delivered, consideration accepted, and the petitioners had withdrawn the deposited amount. The Court applied the settled exception that completed transactions and properties already dealt with through public auction or by third parties should not ordinarily be unsettled under article 226. As third parties had acquired and developed the property and the petitioners had not effectively protected their position, relief was refused and the impugned purchase order was left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:03:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=56693" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (6) TMI 39 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17693</link>
      <description>A completed compulsory purchase under section 269UD was not disturbed in writ jurisdiction despite complaints of natural justice, because possession had been delivered, consideration accepted, and the petitioners had withdrawn the deposited amount. The Court applied the settled exception that completed transactions and properties already dealt with through public auction or by third parties should not ordinarily be unsettled under article 226. As third parties had acquired and developed the property and the petitioners had not effectively protected their position, relief was refused and the impugned purchase order was left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17693</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>