Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (0.95 seconds)
Documents citing Central Airmen Selection Board & Anr vs Surender Kumar Das on 21 November, 2002

Shailendra Kumar Rai And 24 Ors vs State Of U.P. And 2 Ors on 11 December, 2017

In the case of Central Airmen Selection Board and another vs. Surender Kumar Das (supra) (paras 7 and 8), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the principle of promissory estoppel is based on equitable principles. A person who has himself misled the authority by making a fake statement, cannot invoke this principle, if his misrepresentation misled the authority into taking a decision which on discovery of the misrepresentation is sought to be cancelled. The facts of the present case shows that on account of false declaration in their application forms, the petitioners were permitted to appear in the written examination on the belief that they possess Electrician Trade Certificate and on being successful in written examination, they were called for interview. However, when papers were checked at the time of interview, it was found that they do not possess the required eligibility i.e. Electrician Trade Certificate. Consequently, they were not allowed for interview. Thus, there is no illegality in not permitting the petitioners for interview. They cannot take any advantage of their own misleading act of participation in the written examination.
Allahabad High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 13 - S P Kesarwani - Full Document

M/S Sadhavna Hp Gas vs Hindustan Pertoleum Corporation Ltd. & ... on 19 July, 2017

In his application, the respondent had claimed that he had passed the Secondary examination as well as the Higher Secondary +2 examination, and it is clear from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants that his candidature was considered on the basis that he had passed the Higher Secondary +2 examination, as in that case he was entitled to claim relaxation in the matter of age. However, the mark sheet annexed to the application disclosed that the respondent had failed in the subject Chemistry and therefore, his claim in the application, that he had passed the Higher Secondary +2 examination, was factually incorrect and a clear misrepresentation. In these circumstances we are satisfied that the respondent could not be permitted to invoke the principle of promissory estoppel, and the High Court was clearly erred in law in invoking the said principle in the facts of this case. The judgement and order of the High Court therefore cannot be sustained."
Patna High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 0 - S Pandey - Full Document

Devki Nandan & Anr vs Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra on 17 December, 2015

In his application, the respondent had claimed that he had passed the Secondary examination as well as the Higher Secondary +2 examination, and it is clear from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants that his candidature was considered on the basis that he had passed the Higher Secondary +2 examination, as in that case he was entitled to claim relaxation in the matter of age. However, the mark sheet annexed to the application disclosed that the respondent had failed in the subject Chemistry and therefore, his claim in the application, that he had Gupta Shivani 2014.03.10 15:50 passed the Higher Secondary +2 examination, was I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh factually incorrect and a clear SAILESH RANJAN CWP No. 8062 of 2014 21 2015.12.18 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document misrepresentation. In these circumstances we are satisfied that the respondent could not be permitted to invoke the principle of promissory estoppel, and the High Court was clearly erred in law in invoking the said principle in the facts of this case. The judgment and order of the High Court therefore cannot be sustained."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

Smt. Samya Chaudhary vs The Union Of India Thru Secy. And 2 Others on 5 August, 2013

In his application, the respondent had claimed that he had passed the secondary examination as well as the higher secondary +2 examination, and it is clear from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants that his candidaure was considered on the basis that he had passed the higher secondary +2 examination, as in that case he was entitled to caim relaxation in the matter of age. However, the mark-sheet annexed to the application disclosed that the respondent had failed in the subject Chemistry and therefore, his claim in the application, that he had passed the higher secondary +2 examination, was factually incorrect and a clear misrepresentation. In these circumstances we are satisfied that the respondent could not be permitted to invoke the principle of promisory estoppel, and the High Court has clearly erred in law in invoking the said principle in the facts of this case. The judgement and order of the High Court therefore cannot be sustained."
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Manoj Kumar Singh & Others vs State Of ... on 17 October, 2014

In his application, the respondent had claimed that he had passed the Secondary examination as well as the Higher Secondary +2 examination, and it is clear from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants that his candidature was considered on the basis that he had passed the Higher Secondary +2 examination, as in that case he was entitled to claim relaxation in the matter of age. However, the mark sheet annexed to the application disclosed that the respondent had failed in the subject Chemistry and therefore, his claim in the application, that he had passed the Higher Secondary +2 examination, was factually incorrect and a clear misrepresentation. In these circumstances we are satisfied that the respondent could not be permitted to invoke the principle of promissory estoppel, and the High Court was clearly erred in law in invoking the said principle in the facts of this case. The judgement and order of the High Court therefore cannot be sustained."
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

Yudhanshu Angural vs Baba Farid University Of Health ... on 14 December, 2016

In his application, the respondent had claimed that he had passed the Secondary examination as well as the Higher Secondary +2 examination, and it is clear from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants that his candidature was considered on the basis that he had passed the Higher Secondary +2 examination, as in that case he was entitled to claim relaxation in the matter of age. However, the mark sheet annexed to the application disclosed that the respondent had failed in the subject Chemistry and therefore, his claim in the For Subsequent orders see CM-14990-CWP-2016, CM-15291-CWP-2016, -- and 1 more.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

M/S Sadbhavna H P Gas, Located At Near ... vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 17 August, 2017

The learned writ court referring to various judgments of the Supreme Court including the Lillykutty Vs. Scrutiny Committee, SC& ST & Ors.: (2005) 8 SCC 283, Ram Chandra Singh vs. Savitri and others: (2003) 8 SCC 319, Ram Preeti Yadav Vs. U.P. Board of High School & Intermediate Education & Ors.: AIR 2003 SC 4268, Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India: (2007) 8 SCC 449, Manoj Kumar Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.: (2010) 11 SCC 702, Guru Nanak Dev University Vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal & Anr. : (2009) 1 SCC 610, Suresh Sajeesh Babu K. Vs. N.K. Santosh and others: (2012) 12 SCC 106, Central Airmen Selection Board & Anr. Vs. Surendra Kumar Das: AIR 2003 SC 240 held out that the person who misrepresents the authorities by making a false statement cannot invoke the principle of promissory estoppel. The writ court on consideration of the various judgments of the Apex Court mentioned above wherein the Apex Court has considered the effect of forgery and misrepresentation, held out that the writ petitioner has mislead the Corporation by suppressing the fact as to the passing of matriculation certificate. The document Patna High Court LPA No.1071 of 2017 dt.17-08-2017 8/21 found to be forged and fabricated in the enquiry cannot be allowed to take advantage of the equitable principles of promissory estoppel as equity begets equity.
Patna High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - A K Upadhyay - Full Document

Shyam Sundar Sethi vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr. on 8 January, 2025

In the case of Central Airmen Selection Board vs Surender Kumar Dass [(2003) 1 SCC 152], it was held that promissory estoppel is not applicable where the candidate was though selected was not given employment on account of misrepresentation of facts. However, interestingly, it was also additionally argued on the behalf of the petitioner that even if a candidate had been declared selected or appointed contrary to the Rules of Recruitment, the petitioner could have suo moto corrected the mistake and annul the appointment. It was held by way of obiter dicta that the principle of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked in a such case.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - D K Sharma - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next