Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)
Pvc Pipe Manufacturers Welfare ... vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 4 February, 2008 cites

R. Pandian And Anothera. Deivendran Son ... vs State Of Tamil Naduthrough The ... on 21 October, 1997

35. I may refer to the decision in he case of R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Daly (supra). There, the Secretary of State had issued a policy guideline governing searching of cells occupied by convicts and remand prisoners in absence of prisoner. While dealing with the case, it was held that apart from the traditional grounds of review which were available, there was the principle of proportionality. As held by the House of Lords:
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 674 - G N Ray - Full Document

State Of Bihar & Ors. Etc. Etc vs M/S. Suprabhat Steel Limited & Ors., ... on 17 November, 1998

I may also refer to the case of State of Bihar and Ors. v. Suprabhat Steel Limited and Ors. since where the Apex Court, inter alia, held that once the State Government envisaged incentives in the Industrial Policy then all Departments had to work in the direction of implementing such policy arid even though they were authorized by the Bihar Finance Act (prevalent Sales Tax Act in the State) to grant exemptions on "such conditions and restrictions as it may impose", it would not authorize the State Government to negate the incentives and the benefit which an industrial unit would otherwise be entitled to under the general Industrial incentive policy resolution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 80 - Full Document

Kuldeep Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 6 July, 2006

Having done so and the Tender Committee having recommended acceptance of the tender and even the Minister Incharge of the Department not having dissented in any manner now to turn around and say that merely because supply orders were not ultimately issued no right accrues to the petitioners would not only be unreasonable but would be arbitrary. In a democratic society, Government is expected to act fairly and reasonable and in the interest of its subjects. It would have been a different matter where the Government invites application and for certain things like grant of licence but before the applications are disposed of the Government takes a decision not to grant any new licence. The policy not to grant a new licence being permissible, investment by prospective licence seekers would be no ground to bar the Government from change of its previous policy as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh v. Government of NCT of Delhi . There, the Apex Court found that the petitioners applied for licences for liquor vend but before the applications could be disposed of, Government took a policy decision not to grant any new licence. Thus, the Court held that no right had accrued or vested in the persons to bar the Government from changing its previous policy especially as the policy was to be considered having regard to Article 47 of the Constitution of India. The facts in the present case, as found above, are different and distinct.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 133 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1