https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298173 Industrial acquisition for a factory was treated as a public purpose, and the Section 6 declaration was upheld because no colourable exercise of power or collateral purpose was shown. Proceedings under Part VII were held unnecessary where the State had contributed to the acquisition cost, even though a company was involved in the project. Urgency was accepted on the circumstances, including the project timetable, so invocation of Section 17 and exclusion of Section 5A was valid. Section 17(2)(c) was also held not to be limited by ejusdem generis, because clauses (a), (b) and (c) operated in different fields and did not form a common genus. en-us Tue, 02 Mar 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Mar 2022 10:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298173 Industrial acquisition for a factory was treated as a public purpose, and the Section 6 declaration was upheld because no colourable exercise of power or collateral purpose was shown. Proceedings under Part VII were held unnecessary where the State had contributed to the acquisition cost, even though a company was involved in the project. Urgency was accepted on the circumstances, including the project timetable, so invocation of Section 17 and exclusion of Section 5A was valid. Section 17(2)(c) was also held not to be limited by ejusdem generis, because clauses (a), (b) and (c) operated in different fields and did not form a common genus. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 02 Mar 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298173