<?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>1997 (7) TMI 697 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300162</link>
    <description>A valid municipal licence under section 416 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 was treated as a legitimate eligibility condition for allotment of industrial plots under the DDA&#039;s disposal policy and Rule 6(v) of the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981. The allotment scheme was confined to industrial units shifting from non-conforming to conforming areas, and an applicant operating in continuing contravention of law could be distinguished from a law-abiding claimant. The absence of an express exclusion in the notice or form did not make the condition arbitrary. On the individual records, most claims failed, though three cases retained sufficient material to support entitlement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Jan 2022 12:01:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=667162" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (7) TMI 697 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300162</link>
      <description>A valid municipal licence under section 416 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 was treated as a legitimate eligibility condition for allotment of industrial plots under the DDA&#039;s disposal policy and Rule 6(v) of the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981. The allotment scheme was confined to industrial units shifting from non-conforming to conforming areas, and an applicant operating in continuing contravention of law could be distinguished from a law-abiding claimant. The absence of an express exclusion in the notice or form did not make the condition arbitrary. On the individual records, most claims failed, though three cases retained sufficient material to support entitlement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300162</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>