Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.51 seconds)
Documents citing Kothari Oil Products Company vs Government Of Gujarat on 16 July, 1981

Lucky Steel Industries vs State Of Gujarat on 7 March, 2002

[a] The decision of a Division Bench of this Court in M/s Kothari Oil Products Co. v. State of Gujarat, reported in XXIII (1) GLR 20 was cited for the proposition that, if the Government or any authority on behalf of the Government has made a representation and acting on that representation a party has altered its situation, then, it is not open to the Government to resile from that position and at the instance of the party who has altered its situation to its disadvantage, the Court is entitled to direct the Government or the authority to carry out its promises or its scheme. This decision was rendered in context of the benefits of the scheme announced under the notification dated 22nd December 1977. It was held that since the petitioner had shown that they had spent nearly Rs. 43 lakhs in the setting up of the cotton delinting plant after February 1978 relying on the scheme set out in the two notification of December 22, 1977, it was not permissible to the State authorities to back out of the schemes and to say that the petitioners will not be entitled to the benefits thereof. It was held that the resolution dated 26th September 1979, in so far as it purports to take away the benefits of interest free sales tax loan from the petitioners, was not applicable in their case.
Gujarat High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - K A Puj - Full Document

S.K. Oil And Pulses Mill vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 4 April, 1983

38. Before doing so, we may refer to another decision, on which reliance was placed by learned Counsel for the petitioner. This was a decision given by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in (M/s. Kothari Products Company, Rajkot v. Govt. of Gujarat, . This was a direct case and, perhaps, the nearest case, which directly supports the contention of the petitioner. Here, in this case, under a scheme, for a factory which was dealing in manufacture of Vanaspati ghee, some concessions were made available. As a result of this encouragement, the petitioner was compelled to stop its certain activities at certain times and it started manufacturing Vanaspati ghee by extraction of groundnut oil as also from minor oil seeds like cotton seeds. For this purpose, the petitioner had erected plants, where these operations were carried out by the petitioner. It appears that in this case, the scheme was in operation and in 1979, the petitioner has also obtained the benefits of the scheme. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on paragraph 7 of this judgment.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1