Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 940 (1.05 seconds)
Documents citing Jit Ram Shiv Kumar And Ors. Etc vs State Of Haryana And Anr. Etc on 16 April, 1980

Rajendra Kumar Shah vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 15 May, 1985

19. A perusal of the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above shows that principle of promissory estoppel is applicable against the Government in cases where an officer acting within the scope of his authority makes a representation and a person acting on that representation put himself in a disadvantageous position. The officer cannot act arbitrarily to the prejudice of the person who has acted upon such representation and has put himself in a disadvantageous position and in such a case the Court is entitled to require the officer to act according to the representation. This principle of promissory estoppel is, however, an equitable principle and it must yield when the equity so requires.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Jabalpur Bus Operators Association And ... vs State Of M.P. And Anr. on 17 December, 2002

The principle was re-affirmed in Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd., (1985) 4 SCC 369 : (AIR 1986 SC 806) which noted that a Division Bench of two Judges of this Court in Jit Ram v. State of Haryana, (1980) 3 SCR 689 : (AIR 1980 SC 1285) had differed from the view taken by an earlier Division Bench of two Judges in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of U.P., (1979) 2 SCR 641 : (AIR 1979 SC 621), on the point whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel could be defeated by invoking the defence of executive necessity and holding that to do so was wholly unacceptable reference was made to the well accepted and desirable practice of the later Bench referring the case to a Larger Bench when the learned Judges found that the situation called for such reference.'
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 95 - Cited by 122 - Full Document

Md. Rashid Khan vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 13 April, 1994

In support of his contention he relied on a judgment and decision in the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana . In the aforesaid decision a sanction to prosecute Under Section 132 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was required and a sanction to take cognizance Under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also required. Only a sanction to prosecute was there but no separate sanction was there to take cognizance. The High Court held that the sanction to prosecute could be treated also as a sanction to take cognizance since the sanctioning authority was same and the persons concerned are the same and the same facts were required in both the cases. The High Court held that the sanction to prosecute could be treated as sanction to take cognizance and no separate sanction to take cognizance is necessary. The Supreme Court however, did not accept this view of the High Court. It pointed out the important points of distinction between a sanction to prosecute and a sanction to take cognizance. The Supreme Court held that the sanction to prosecute could not be treated as a sanction to take cognizance and accordingly the Supreme Court held that there was no valid sanction to take cognizance. In the case before the Supreme Court the sanction order was expressly recorded to be a sanction to prosecute as in the present case. Therefore, the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court should apply to the facts of the instant case.
Calcutta High Court Cites 99 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S. Ananda And Ors. vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. on 18 January, 1983

14. Apart form this I am of the view that the decision in M/s. Jit Ram Shiv Kumar v. State of Haryana cannot be applied to the facts of this case where the promissory estoppel is not invoked in this case preventing the Government from doing any statutory function or from acting against any statute. It is said that grant of pension to the petitioners taking the date of absorption as the basis while they are still working and getting their pay from the Corporation will be contrary to Rule 44 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and if the petitioners were to invoke the principle of promissory estoppel, the Government will be forced to act contrary to the said Rule 44. But a perusal of the said rule indicates that it regulates the pay in case of re-employed Government pensioner or of a retired employee from a local fund. The rule does not deal with the case of a retired Government servant who opted to serve the Corporation, that is persons who retired from Government service and reemployed by the Corporation.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

M/S Rspl Limited vs Mukesh Sharma & Anr on 3 August, 2016

We have carefully considered both the decisions in Motilal Sugar Mills case [(1979) 2 SCC 409: 1979 SCC (Tax) 144: (1979) 2 SCR 641] and Jit Ram case [(1981) 1 SCC 11: AIR 1980 SC 1285: (1980) 3 SCR 689] and we are clearly of the view that what has been laid down inMotilal Sugar Mills case [(1979) 2 SCC 409: 1979 SCC (Tax) 144: (1979) 2 SCR 641] represents the correct law in regard to the doctrine of promissory estoppel and we express our disagreement with the observations in Jit Ram case [(1981) 1 SCC 11: AIR 1980 SC 1285: (1980) 3 SCR 689] to the extent that they conflict with the statement of the law in Motilal Sugar Mills case [(1979) 2 SCC 409: 1979 SCC (Tax) 144: (1979) 2 SCR 641] and introduce reservations cutting down the full width and amplitude of the propositions of law laid down in that case.‖ (underlining added)
Delhi High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - B D Ahmed - Full Document

Syed Mohammad Hasan vs K.C. Das, Deputy Chief Controller Of ... on 7 March, 1991

3. Secondly, the sanction purported to be given by the Collector of Customs under Section 137(1) of the Customs Act was not in accordance with the law because on the face of the said sanction order it was in substance a sanction for prosecution but not a sanction to take cognizance. It is contended that Supreme Court in Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana has clearly observed that a sanction to prosecute as contemplated in Section 132 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not a substitute for sanction for taking cognizance under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code and in view of the above Supreme Court decision the sanction is invalid and the taking of cognizance on the basis of the said sanction is also invalid.
Calcutta High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Tapti Oil Industries And Another vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 18 August, 1983

Jit Ram's case clearly lays down that in the case of a promissory estoppel, the court can enforce compliance by public authority of the obligation laid on him if he arbitrarily or on his mere whim ignores the promises made by him on behalf of the Government. If on the basis of promissory estoppel certain rights under the 1979 scheme can be claimed by the petitioners and if there is a corresponding obligation on the implementing authority and if the implementing authority arbitrarily declines to discharge its obligations, then it is obvious that the right claimed by the petitioners could be enforced under article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 21 - S P Kurdukar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next