<?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>1993 (9) TMI 85 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20426</link>
    <description>Compulsory purchase under Chapter XX-C requires a pre-decisional opportunity to show cause and a reasoned order communicated to the affected parties; an order passed without hearing and without recorded reasons is vulnerable to being set aside. In pre-emptive purchase matters, interest on the balance sale consideration is compensatory where the owner is kept out of payment by court orders and has not obstructed the transaction. The commentary notes that later proceedings in another court do not by themselves defeat entitlement, and that a nine per cent per annum rate was treated as appropriate where the property remained in the owner&#039;s possession.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Sep 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:23:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=59425" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (9) TMI 85 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20426</link>
      <description>Compulsory purchase under Chapter XX-C requires a pre-decisional opportunity to show cause and a reasoned order communicated to the affected parties; an order passed without hearing and without recorded reasons is vulnerable to being set aside. In pre-emptive purchase matters, interest on the balance sale consideration is compensatory where the owner is kept out of payment by court orders and has not obstructed the transaction. The commentary notes that later proceedings in another court do not by themselves defeat entitlement, and that a nine per cent per annum rate was treated as appropriate where the property remained in the owner&#039;s possession.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Sep 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20426</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>