<?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>1995 (4) TMI 318 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303416</link>
    <description>A contractual floor space index clause could not override the sanctioned development plan under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The agreed FSI acquired legal effect only when it conformed to the statutory planning framework and any modification was approved in the manner prescribed by Sections 31 and 37, with final sanctity attaching only after approval under Section 159 as part of the development plan. Any alteration without prior State sanction remained inconsistent with the statute, so the higher FSI in the lease was not legally enforceable. Promissory estoppel also could not be invoked to require a public authority to act contrary to statute or beyond its powers.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2022 15:42:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=685693" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (4) TMI 318 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303416</link>
      <description>A contractual floor space index clause could not override the sanctioned development plan under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The agreed FSI acquired legal effect only when it conformed to the statutory planning framework and any modification was approved in the manner prescribed by Sections 31 and 37, with final sanctity attaching only after approval under Section 159 as part of the development plan. Any alteration without prior State sanction remained inconsistent with the statute, so the higher FSI in the lease was not legally enforceable. Promissory estoppel also could not be invoked to require a public authority to act contrary to statute or beyond its powers.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303416</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>