<?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>2023 (11) TMI 1439 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467929</link>
    <description>A renewal clause in the parking policy was treated as an enabling provision, not an enforceable right to extend the licence. The Court held that the Railway Administration was generally required to avoid extension of an existing contract and to proceed with a fresh contract before expiry, subject to administrative conditions. Applying the test for interim relief, it found no sufficient basis for interference because a new contractor had already been selected, public interest would be prejudiced by extension, and any loss to the appellant could be compensated in money. Accordingly, the challenge to refusal of interim protection under Section 9, as well as interference under Section 37, failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2026 14:47:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=895976" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (11) TMI 1439 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467929</link>
      <description>A renewal clause in the parking policy was treated as an enabling provision, not an enforceable right to extend the licence. The Court held that the Railway Administration was generally required to avoid extension of an existing contract and to proceed with a fresh contract before expiry, subject to administrative conditions. Applying the test for interim relief, it found no sufficient basis for interference because a new contractor had already been selected, public interest would be prejudiced by extension, and any loss to the appellant could be compensated in money. Accordingly, the challenge to refusal of interim protection under Section 9, as well as interference under Section 37, failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467929</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>