<?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>1970 (10) TMI 83 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289439</link>
    <description>A notification under Section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, excluding land from the Act, may be struck down if proved to have been issued mala fide. The Court noted that the challenge did not require the aggrieved party to identify a particular officer personally responsible where the relevant facts and decision-making process were within the State&#039;s special knowledge. On the facts, the notification came after the plaintiffs had obtained a pre-emption decree, material bearing on that decree was not properly placed before the decision-maker, and the asserted industrial purpose was accepted without adequate scrutiny. The notification was therefore invalid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2020 18:37:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=618746" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1970 (10) TMI 83 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289439</link>
      <description>A notification under Section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, excluding land from the Act, may be struck down if proved to have been issued mala fide. The Court noted that the challenge did not require the aggrieved party to identify a particular officer personally responsible where the relevant facts and decision-making process were within the State&#039;s special knowledge. On the facts, the notification came after the plaintiffs had obtained a pre-emption decree, material bearing on that decree was not properly placed before the decision-maker, and the asserted industrial purpose was accepted without adequate scrutiny. The notification was therefore invalid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289439</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>