https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304709 The parties agreed that paragraphs 33(ii) and 33(iii) of the earlier order needed modification so the wording would state that the land was identified and proposed by the respondent APSEZL and finally selected by CWC, subject to the time-frame prescribed in the judgment. The application was disposed of on that basis, with the specified substitution directed in the earlier order. en-us Thu, 26 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Oct 2022 17:43:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304709 The parties agreed that paragraphs 33(ii) and 33(iii) of the earlier order needed modification so the wording would state that the land was identified and proposed by the respondent APSEZL and finally selected by CWC, subject to the time-frame prescribed in the judgment. The application was disposed of on that basis, with the specified substitution directed in the earlier order. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 26 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304709