https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38233 Service of notice under section 269D(2)(a) in Chapter XX-A acquisition proceedings was mandatory for every transferor and other persons specifically entitled to notice, because the notice secured a valuable statutory right to object to the proposed acquisition and contest the basis of the action. Each transferor had an independent interest in the property, so service on one did not amount to service on the others. Non-service on two transferors therefore deprived them of the opportunity to object and amounted to non-compliance with a mandatory requirement, vitiating the acquisition proceedings and rendering them illegal and void. en-us Wed, 07 Sep 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Apr 2010 11:14:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38233 Service of notice under section 269D(2)(a) in Chapter XX-A acquisition proceedings was mandatory for every transferor and other persons specifically entitled to notice, because the notice secured a valuable statutory right to object to the proposed acquisition and contest the basis of the action. Each transferor had an independent interest in the property, so service on one did not amount to service on the others. Non-service on two transferors therefore deprived them of the opportunity to object and amounted to non-compliance with a mandatory requirement, vitiating the acquisition proceedings and rendering them illegal and void. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 07 Sep 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38233