Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.84 seconds)
Documents citing Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd vs Union Of India on 8 October, 1987

Afr Udayanath Rout vs State Of Odisha & Others ..... Opp. ... on 10 August, 2021

13. The principle of promissory estoppel has been considered by the apex Court in Union of India v. M/s. Anglo Afghan Agencies etc., AIR 1968 SC 718; Chowgule & Company (Hind) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 2021; M/s Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1979 SC 621; Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd., AIR 1986 SC 806; Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2414; and // 21 // Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 2181 and many other subsequent decisions also.
Orissa High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - B R Sarangi - Full Document

Food Corporation Of India, Bhopal And ... vs Babulal Agarwal, Bhopal on 18 September, 1996

In Delhi Cloth and General Mills v. Union of India(1988) 1 SCC 86:(AIR 1987 SC 2414) the Supreme Court observed that the party asserting the estoppel must have acted upon the assurance given to him or must have relied upon the representation made to him. The entire doctrine proceeds on the premise that it is reliance based and nothing more. The Court would compel the opposite party to adhere to the representation acted upon or abstained from acting. The alteration of position by the party is the only indispensable requirement of the doctrine. It is not necessary to prove further any damage, detriment or prejudice to the party asserting the estoppel,
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Miss Reeta vs Berhampur University And Anr. on 17 July, 1992

In support of the view taken in Rajkishore's case, the learned counsel for the petitioner refers us to Delhi Cloth and General Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2414, in paragraph 18 of which it was stated that for application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel all that is required is that the party asserting the estoppel must have relied upon representation made to him and must have "changed or altered the position" by relying on that representation. It is not necessary to prove further any detriment or prejudice to the party asserting the estoppel. Before deciding whether in the present case there was change or alteration in the position, let us see what action the petitioner had taken on the basis of his having been declared to have passed. All that the petitioner had done was to have applied to different institutions for job and his case is that pursuant to these applications, he had received two call letters --One from Banking Service Recruitment Board, Bombay and the other from the same Board in Delhi. The point for determination, therefore, is whether because of taking up the aforesaid steps followed by the two call letters it can be said that the petitioner had "changed or altered his position."
Orissa High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Nestle India Limited And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others. (And Other ... on 18 May, 1998

In Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 2414, their Lordships refused to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel on the ground that the letter on which the petitioner had based its claim contained a clear stipulation that decision contained therein was subject to review by Railway and, therefore, clear and unqualified assurance can be said to have been made to the appellant.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 11 - M L Singhal - Full Document
1   2 3 Next