<?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>2002 (1) TMI 1347 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309364</link>
    <description>Where compensation proceedings remain pending and a statutory successor has stepped into liability, the successor is entitled to notice and participation under Section 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act; mere awareness of the proceedings or limited witness participation is not enough, and the remand for fresh consideration was sustained. On remand, because the delay was not attributable to the claimants, the evidence already recorded for them was protected: it need not be recorded again, the Authority was allowed to cross-examine the witnesses already examined, and any witness no longer available would not result in exclusion of the earlier statement from evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Aug 2023 12:02:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=724452" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (1) TMI 1347 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309364</link>
      <description>Where compensation proceedings remain pending and a statutory successor has stepped into liability, the successor is entitled to notice and participation under Section 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act; mere awareness of the proceedings or limited witness participation is not enough, and the remand for fresh consideration was sustained. On remand, because the delay was not attributable to the claimants, the evidence already recorded for them was protected: it need not be recorded again, the Authority was allowed to cross-examine the witnesses already examined, and any witness no longer available would not result in exclusion of the earlier statement from evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309364</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>