Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 93 (2.21 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Kerala And Ors vs K.G. Madhavan Pillai And Ors on 19 September, 1988

Jagdish Chand Memorial Trust vs State Of H.P on 13 December, 2017

In State of Kerala and Others vs. K.G. Madhavan Pillai and Others, (1988)4 SCC 669, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner-Trust, State Government published a ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 23:05:07 :::HCHP 43 final list of areas in a Gazette where new unaided recognised high schools/upper primary schools/lower primary schools were to be opened or existing unaided lower primary schools/upper primary .
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 59 - Cited by 191 - S Sharma - Full Document

Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar ... vs Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical ... on 7 February, 1992

In view of what the Division Bench of this Court has said in the above mentioned case, I do not think the petitioner can even ask for provisional affiliation, if not a permanent affiliation, as per the statutes. So, I agree with the argument of Mr. Sukuntharaj, the learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent University that there are no provisions under the old statutes for giving affiliation without prior permission and only recently Statute 4 has been framed by the University which has been extracted above which will apply to the petitioner's case. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relies up the decision in State of Kerala v. K.G. Madhavan Pillai , where permission was granted for opening of new schools and unilateral action was taken by the Government later. I do not think that this will apply to the facts of the case on hand. In my view, the statutes framed with regard to infrastructural facilities will apply to the case of the petitioner though prior permission of the Government is not necessary.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

Ram Ujagar Mishra vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy.Secondary ... on 19 July, 2018

(Vide Calcutta Gas Co. (Proprietary) Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal & ors., AIR 1962 SC 1044; Mani Subrat Jain & ors. Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 276; State of Kerala Vs. Smt. A. Lakshmikutty, AIR 1987 SC 331; State of Kerala Vs. K.G., Madhavan Pillai & ors., AIR 1989 SC 49; Rajendra Singh Vs. State of M.P. & ors., AIR 1996 SC 2736; and Ravi Lakshmibai Akshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Chand Bihari Kapoor & ors., (1998) 7 SCC 469).
Allahabad High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 5 - I Ali - Full Document

Essar Projects Ltd. vs State Of Gujarat on 11 June, 2001

He also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala v. K.G. Madhavan Pillai, reported in (1988) 4 SCC, 669 wherein it has been held that if the Government has the power to cancel or revoke its earlier Order conferring a benefit of getting their applications further processed, cancellation of the earlier Order deprives the petitioner of their right of benefit flowing from such Order and therefore, such Order cannot be passed without an opportunity of hearing. Disqualifying the petitioner deprives him of the benefit or right acquired by him as a result of the earlier decision or Order of being considered for grant of the contract or having their financial bid processed and considered. At least the Government is bound to Act fairly in discharging its administrative functions and fair play in action demands that the notice of the proposed action and an opportunity to explain ought to be given before any action resulting in prejudice to any party is taken. The decision to pre-qualify the petitioner company was taken and communicated on 14th August, 1998 and 20th August, 1998. The post bid conference took place on 28th and 29th August, 1998 and the impugned decision reviewing and disqualifying the petitioner was taken on 21.12.2000. The impugned decision disqualifying the petitioner was taken on 21st December, 2000 almost 28 months after the post bid conference. No notice of proposed action and opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. Failure to do so vitiates the decision making process.
Gujarat High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shafeek.S vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 8 April, 2009

37. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the managements were permitted to run the classes, to conduct examinations and to grant Transfer Certificates for the last several years, which attracts the existence of legitimate expectation and it would entitle them to continue to run the schools as before. Reliance is placed on Navjyoti Co-op. Group Housing Society and others v. Union of India and others ((1992) 4 SCC 477); Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd. vs. Electricity Inspector & ETIO and others ((2007) 5 SCC 447) and State of Kerala v. K.G.Madhavan Pillai (AIR 1989 SC 49). W.P.(C) NO.16379 OF 2008 AND CONNECTED CASES :: 39 ::
Kerala High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 3 - K T Sankaran - Full Document

Sunil Gayaprasad Mishra vs Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj on 3 August, 2012

Reliance is placed in this behalf on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala vs. K.G.Madhavan and others reported in AIR 1989 Supreme Court 49 and H.C.Suman and others vs. Ministry Employees Co-operative House Building Society Ltd, New Delhi and others reported in AIR 1991 Supreme Court 2160. It is this principle, which has been pressed into service before us and it is contended firstly that the power to grant the approval is quasi judicial in nature. Secondly, once that power is exercised and the approval is granted, nothing more in terms of the Statute No.8 of 1979 can be done by the Vice Chancellor as his duty in terms of the same comes to an end. He cannot thereafter take recourse to that Statute any more. Thirdly, the approval once granted is final.
Bombay High Court Cites 74 - Cited by 2 - S C Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Mrs.Bezawada Supriya, vs The Govt on 3 March, 2022

111) In State of Kerala vs. K.G. Madhavan Pillai48, the principle of Legitimate Expectation was considered. In the facts of the above judgment, a sanction was issued for the 48 (1988) 4 SCC 669 CJ, MSM,J and DVSS,J W.P.Nos.13203 of 2020 & batch 71 respondents to open a new aided school and to upgrade the existing schools, however, an Order was issued 15 days later to keep the previous sanction in abeyance. This Order was challenged by the respondents in lieu of violation of principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court ruled that the sanction had entitled the respondents with legitimate expectation and the second order violated principles of natural justice.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 254 - Cited by 0 - P K Mishra - Full Document

Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited vs Delhi Electricity Regulatory ... on 24 May, 2022

75. It is well settled that if pursuant to an earlier order, a person acquires a right enforceable in law, the same cannot be taken away by a subsequent order under general power of rescindment available under the General Clauses Act. The power of rescindment has to be determined in the light of the subject matter, context, and the effect of the relevant provisions of the statute [see State of Kerala v. K.G. Madhavan Pillai (1988) 4 SCC 669 as reiterated in HC Suman & Anr. v. Rehabilitation Ministry Employees' CHBS & Ors., (1991) 4 SCC 485].
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 58 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next