<?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>2012 (7) TMI 1134 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297730</link>
    <description>A defaulting bidder cannot obtain transfer of nazul property through equitable directions when the agreement itself provided that non-payment would render it void and permit resale. The Court held that no enforceable right arose to compel acceptance of belated balance consideration or delivery of the plot. It also held that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 could not be used to create a proprietary entitlement or support transfer of the plot on payment of current market price, as the statute did not govern allotment or sale of land to educational institutions. The appellants likewise had no continuing right to freehold conversion after expiry of the original lease, and stale claims could not defeat the quashing of conversion proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Sep 2021 13:11:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=656256" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (7) TMI 1134 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297730</link>
      <description>A defaulting bidder cannot obtain transfer of nazul property through equitable directions when the agreement itself provided that non-payment would render it void and permit resale. The Court held that no enforceable right arose to compel acceptance of belated balance consideration or delivery of the plot. It also held that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 could not be used to create a proprietary entitlement or support transfer of the plot on payment of current market price, as the statute did not govern allotment or sale of land to educational institutions. The appellants likewise had no continuing right to freehold conversion after expiry of the original lease, and stale claims could not defeat the quashing of conversion proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297730</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>