https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284616 A public allottee who accepted brochure terms, paid the stated price and took possession could not use Article 32 to reopen concluded flat-sale contracts and seek a refund after receiving the contractual benefit. The levy of surcharge in MIG flat pricing was also upheld because price fixation was an executive function, Article 14 required comparison within the relevant scheme-based class, and no hostile discrimination was shown. The pricing policy and surcharge were not inconsistent with the housing body's "no profit no loss" framework, since the regulations allowed disposal-price fixation and the overall scheme could use surpluses to subsidise weaker sections. Delegated authority also supported the Vice-Chairman's approval of the disposal price, and no unlawful profiteering was established. en-us Fri, 21 Dec 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Nov 2019 14:32:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284616 A public allottee who accepted brochure terms, paid the stated price and took possession could not use Article 32 to reopen concluded flat-sale contracts and seek a refund after receiving the contractual benefit. The levy of surcharge in MIG flat pricing was also upheld because price fixation was an executive function, Article 14 required comparison within the relevant scheme-based class, and no hostile discrimination was shown. The pricing policy and surcharge were not inconsistent with the housing body's "no profit no loss" framework, since the regulations allowed disposal-price fixation and the overall scheme could use surpluses to subsidise weaker sections. Delegated authority also supported the Vice-Chairman's approval of the disposal price, and no unlawful profiteering was established. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 21 Dec 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284616