Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.24 seconds)
M/S. S. Mund Constructions vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... Opp. ... on 18 August, 2023 cites

H R Parvathi vs The Manager Canara Bank on 7 April, 2010

In the case of H.R. Basavaraj v. Canara Bank, (2010) 12 SCC 458, the apex Court while dealing with the general word, 'estoppel' stated that 'estoppel is a principle applicable when one person induces another or Page 27 of 40 intentionally causes the other person to believe something to be true and to act upon such belief as to change his/ her position. In such a case, the former shall be estopped from going back on the word given. The principle of estoppel is only applicable in cases where the other party has changed his positions relying upon the representation thereby made.
Karnataka High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 11 - P B Sanganagouda - Full Document

Om Prakash Shukla vs Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors on 18 March, 1986

In Om Prakash Sukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Sukla, AIR 1986 SC 1043, the apex Court was pleased to hold that when the petitioner therein appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in the examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 652 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

Madan Lal & Ors vs The State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Ors on 6 February, 1995

In Madan Lal and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, AIR 1995 SC 1088, the apex Court held that if a candidate takes a calculated chance Page 28 of 40 and appears at the interview, then only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or Selection Committee was not properly constituted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 457 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

P.S.Gopinathan vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 9 May, 2008

In P.S. Gopinathan v. State of Kerala [(2008) 7 SCC 70 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 225] this Court relying on the above principle held thus: (SCC p. 84, para 44) "44. ... Apart from the fact that the appellant accepted his posting orders without any demur in that capacity, his subsequent order of appointment dated Page 29 of 40 15-7-1992 issued by the Governor had not been challenged by the appellant. Once he chose to join the mainstream on the basis of option given to him, he cannot turn back and challenge the conditions. He could have opted not to join at all but he did not do so. Now it does not lie in his mouth to clamour regarding the cut-off date or for that matter any other condition. The High Court, therefore, in our opinion, rightly held that the appellant is estopped and precluded from questioning the said order dated 14-1- 1992.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 60 - P P Naolekar - Full Document

K.H. Siraj vs High Court Of Kerala & Ors on 23 May, 2006

28. Besides, in K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala [(2006) 6 SCC 395 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1345] in SCC paras 72 and 74 it was held that the candidates who participated in the interview with knowledge that for selection they had to secure prescribed minimum marks on being unsuccessful in interview could not turn around and challenge that the said provision of minimum marks was improper, said challenge is liable to be dismissed on the ground of estoppel."
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 362 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document
1   2 Next