Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 47 (1.06 seconds)

Kerala State Beverages (M And M) Corp ... vs P P Suresh And Ors. Etc. Etc. on 4 October, 2019

In P.P. Suresh (supra) while considering the assurance given by the Government as reflected from the Government Order dated 20/2/2002 to provide employment to displaced Abkari workers, adjusting them against 25% of the daily wage vacancies that would arise in the Corporation, it was held that no vested right was created by virtue of such an assurance. 34.2. The Government Resolution dated 30/4/2005, did not create a horizontal reservation, as per Clause - 7 (7) therein, on the playing of any particular sport, but the same was created in respect of a sport approved/recommended by the authorities as stated therein and which sport was to be approved/recommended was at the sole discretion of the Indian Olympic Association and the Maharashtra Olympic Association. Thus, even if a horizontal reservation was created, a sportsperson, playing a particular sport ::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2021 06:37:19 ::: WP 4832 of 2018.odt 85 could not claim an absolute right, for the benefit of reservation, as the playing of such particular sport, was at the discretion of the above authorities, apart from which under Clause-5 of the Government Resolution dated 30/4/2005, the right to make changes in the sports in Appendix-A, was kept reserved by the State, in itself. In the instant case also what has been indicated or provided by the Government Resolution dated 30/4/2005, was the reservation of 5% for sportspersons in the matter of employment, on complying criteria as laid down therein and nothing else, which was based upon the anticipated continuance of the then existing law/assurance which was the Government Resolution dated 30/4/2005 and thus it cannot be said that any vested right was created in the matter. This 5% reservation in the matter of employment, has not been taken away by the Government Resolution dated 1/7/2016, but only the criteria has been changed to accommodate a larger number of sportspersons and the number of institutions where such 5% reservation for sportspersons would become available has been enlarged, so that a greater number of vacancies would become available.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 114 - L N Rao - Full Document

M/S Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors on 12 December, 1978

The doctrine of promissory estoppel would be displaced in such a case, because on the facts, equity would not require that the Government or public authority should be held bound by the promise or representation made by it. This aspect has been dealt with fully in Motilal Sugar Mills case [(1979) 2 SCC 409 : 1979 SCC (Tax) 144 : (1979) 2 SCR 641] and we find ourselves wholly in agreement with what has been said in that decision on this point."
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 1143 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

The State Of Jharkhand vs Brahmputra Metallics Limited on 1 December, 2020

13.19. The Hon'ble Apex Court thereafter in State of Jharkhand and Others Vs Brahmputra Metallics Ltd., Ranchi and Another 2020 SCC OnLine SC 968 dilated upon the doctrine of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation and upon a consideration of Monnet Ispat and Energy (supra) held that for the application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel, there has to be a promise based on which the promisee has acted to its prejudice, whereas in contrast while applying the doctrine of legitimate expectation, the primary considerations are reasonableness and fairness in State action and considering Lt. Col.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 92 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd vs Commercial Tax Officer And Ors on 22 November, 2004

The principles regarding the invocation and applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation, thereafter, upon consideration of what has been held in Indo-Afghan; Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company Ltd. ; Ram Kumar; Sipahi Singh; Motilal Padampat; Godfrey Phillips India Ltd.; Hindustan Development Corporation; Kanishka Trading ; P.T.R. Exports (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. ; Dr. Ashok Kumar Maheshwari ; Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. (supra) have been summed up by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. (supra) in the following words :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 402 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Union Of India vs M/S Unicorn Industries on 19 September, 2019

13.18. The issue thereafter fell for consideration of a three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Unicorn Industries (2019) 10 SCC 575 , and after considering the position as enunciated in Kanishka Trading; Shree Durga Oil Mills; Mahaveer Oil Mills; Shreejee Sales Corporation (supra); Shri Sidhbali Steels Vs. State of U.P. 2011 (3) SCC 193 and D.G. of Foreign Trade Vs. Kanak Exports 2016(2) SCC 226 , it was held as under :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 22 - B R Gavai - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Godfrey Philips India Ltd. Etc. Etc on 30 September, 1985

In Godfrey Philips India Ltd. (supra), the Court after noticing Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills (supra) and Jit Ram (supra) expressed its disagreement with the observations in Jit Ram (supra) to the extent that they conflicted with the statement of law in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills (supra) and introduced reservations cutting down the full width and amplitude of the propositions of law laid down in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills (supra) and held as under :
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 574 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

P & T Scheduled Caste/Tribe Employees' ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 29 August, 1988

WP 4832 of 2018.odt 86 34.3. That apart Article 16 (4) of the Constitution is only an enabling provision as held in P&T Scheduled Caste/Tribe Employees' Welfare Assn. Vs. Union of India (1988) 4 SCC 147, and the State would always have the liberty to make changes in policies, based upon the change in circumstances, criteria, conditions, unworkability of the policy, addressing a larger public interest and similar factors.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 74 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

Monnet Ispat And Energy Ltd vs Union Of India And Ors on 26 July, 2012

13.19. The Hon'ble Apex Court thereafter in State of Jharkhand and Others Vs Brahmputra Metallics Ltd., Ranchi and Another 2020 SCC OnLine SC 968 dilated upon the doctrine of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation and upon a consideration of Monnet Ispat and Energy (supra) held that for the application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel, there has to be a promise based on which the promisee has acted to its prejudice, whereas in contrast while applying the doctrine of legitimate expectation, the primary considerations are reasonableness and fairness in State action and considering Lt. Col.
Supreme Court of India Cites 176 - Cited by 272 - R M Lodha - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next