Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 263 (2.01 seconds)
Documents citing Shrijee Sales Corporation & Another vs Union Of India on 20 December, 1996

Vairavikulam Lime Products Private ... vs Government Of India, Ministry Of ... on 19 June, 2006

The next case is Shrijee Sales Corporation v. Union of India , wherein A.M. Ahmadi, C.J., speaking for the Bench considered the correctness of the aforesaid decision in Kasinka Trading. A.M. Ahmadi, C.J., while upholding the notification in Shrijee Sales Corporation, would hold that the principle of promissory estoppel is applicable against the Government, but in case there is a supervening public equity, the Government would be allowed to change its stand and to withdraw the representation made by it, which induced persons to take certain steps. It is only if the Court is satisfied, on proper and adequate material placed by the Government that overriding public interest requires that the Government should not be held bound by the promise but should be free to act unfettered by it, that the Court would refuse to enforce the promise against the Government. The Court would not act on the mere ipse dixit of the Government, for it is the Court which has to decide and not the Government whether the Government should be held exempt from liability and the burden would be upon the Government to show that the public interest in the Government acting otherwise than in accordance with the promise is so overwhelming that it would be inequitable to hold the Government bound by the promise and the Court would insist on a highly rigorous standard of proof in the discharge of this burden.
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 3 - M K Vinayagam - Full Document

Shree Jagannath Packers And Ors. vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 14 September, 2004

"The law on the matter is now well-settled that even in respect of exemptions that may have been made by the Government the doctrine of promissory estoppel will not be applicable if the change in the stand of the Government is made on account of public policy. This position has been explained in detail by this Court in Kasinka Trading (1995) 1 SCC 274 and reiterated in Shrijee Sales Corporation v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 398. In both these cases this Court is concerned with notifications issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act.
Orissa High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 1 - A K Patnaik - Full Document

Welspun Maxsteel Limited vs Union Of India on 8 July, 2011

Once it is obligatory for the Union to ensure that the distribution of natural gas has to be in public interest and the PSC overrides any other contract; applying the ratio of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shrijee Sales vs UOI, Kasinka Traders vs UOI, M. P. Mathur Vs. DTC and State Of West Bengal Vs. Niranjan Singha referred herein above, the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel or Legitimate Expectation cannot be held to be applicable. There can be no promissory estoppel against public interest and the impugned action of curtailing gas supply to non-priority sectors so as to ensure that the reduction in supply of gas to core/priority sectors is kept at the minimum can be certainly said to be eminently in public interest and hence even the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:28:13 ::: 62 WP3748.11.doc said submission regarding the promissory estoppel will have to be rejected.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - G S Godbole - Full Document

The State Of Maharashtra vs Reliance Industries Ltd on 25 March, 2026

21. However, the matter requires consideration from another perspective. While the State, undoubtedly possesses the power to withdraw or modify a concession granted under a statutory provision, the manner in which such statutory power to withdraw exemption is exercised, must also satisfy the requirements of reasonableness and fairness. The principles of 21 fair play demand that such withdrawal should not operate in a manner that causes undue hardship to those who have structured their affairs on the basis of concession earlier extended to them. This Court8 recognized the principle that Government may withdraw or modify a concession in exercise of statutory power. At the same time, it was held that Government ought to resile from its stand by giving reasonable notice so as to afford the beneficiary a reasonable opportunity to reorganise their affairs provided such a course is feasible. The rationale behind the principle is that the persons who have structured their commercial or industrial activities on the basis of a concession should not be subjected to abrupt policy reversals which leave them 8 Shrijee Sales Corporation and Anr. (supra) 22 without reasonable time to adjust to the altered regulatory framework.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - P S Narasimha - Full Document

Shree Sanyeeji Ispat Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. vs State Of Assam And Ors. on 7 October, 2005

83. The decision in Shrijee Sales Corporation v. Union of India , relied upon by Mr. Saikia, is a case in which the correctness of the decision in Kasinka Trading , came to be re-examined by a Bench of three Judges of the apex Court and the decision reached in Kasinka Trading , came to be affirmed therein. In Shrijee Sales Corporation , too, the specific finding of the court was that "there is a supervening public interest and hence it should not be mandatory for the Government to give a notice before withdrawing the exemption" and it was, in these circumstances, that the court, in Shrijee Sales Corporation , declared that the decision in Kasinka Trading , has been correctly reached. In Shrijee Sales Corporation , the apex Court has reiterated its earlier decision that in case there is supervening public equity, the Government would be allowed to change its stand ; but the court must satisfy itself that such a public interest exists. The three-Judge Bench in Shrijee Sales Corporation , approved the position of law propounded in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. , to the effect that "it is only if the court is satisfied, on proper and adequate material placed by the Government, that overriding public interest requires that the Government should not be held bound by the promise but should be free to act unfettered by it, that the court would refuse to enforce the promise against the Government."
Gauhati High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 2 - I Ansari - Full Document

WP(C)/1834/2021 on 29 April, 2025

In Shrijee Sales Corpn. [Shrijee Sales Corpn. v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 398] , it is observed and held that the principle of promissory estoppel may be applicable against the Government. But the determination of applicability of promissory estoppel against public authority/Government hinges upon balance of equity or "public interest". In case there is a supervening public interest, the Government would be allowed to change its stand; it would then be able to withdraw from representation made by it which induced persons to take certain steps which may have gone adverse to the interest of such persons on account of such withdrawal. Once public interest is accepted as the superior equity which can override individual equity, the aforesaid principle should be applicable even in cases where a period has been indicated for operation of the promise. 21.3.
Gauhati High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - S Saikia - Full Document

M/S. Jsw Steel Limited vs Managing Director M.S.E.D.C.L. And ... on 2 April, 2026

Therefore, the judgments Shrijee Sales Corporation v. Union of India [(1997) 3 SCC 398] (Para 7) and Unicorn Industries v. Union of India [(2019) 10 SCC 575], cited by Ms. Vyas in support of her submission that the State may withdraw the exemption Page 29 of 39 2nd April, 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2026 21:41:23 ::: M/s. JSW Steel Limited Vs. Managing Director M.S.E.D.C.L and ors.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - B P Colabawalla - Full Document

Pawan Alloys And Casting Pvt. Ltd Meerut ... vs U.P. State Electricity Board And Ors on 5 August, 1997

Consequently it must be held that the twin aspects highlighted by this Court in Shrijee Sales Corporation (supra) on the basis of which the authority promising a particular course of conduct on its part to the prospective promisee can resile from the promise even prematurely are not found established on the facts of these cases. Consequently the ratio of the said decision cannot be of any avail to the respondent-Board.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 117 - S B Majmudar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next