Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 55 (0.37 seconds)
Manohar Lal Sharma vs Union Of India on 27 February, 2023 cites

Union Of India And Ors vs Hindustan Development Corpn. And Ors on 15 April, 1993

Ltd. v. State of Punjab [(1992) 2 SCC 411] and Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corpn. [(1993) 3 SCC 499 : JT (1993) 3 SC 15] In Godfrey Philips India Ltd. [(1985) 4 SCC 369 : 1986 SCC (Tax) 11] this Court opined: (SCC p. 388, para 13) "We may also point out that the doctrine of promissory estoppel being an equitable doctrine, it must yield when the equity so requires; if it can be shown by the Government or public authority that having regard to the facts as they have transpired, it would be inequitable to hold the Government or public authority to the promise or representation made by it, the Court would not raise an equity in favour of the person to whom the promise or representation is made and enforce the promise or representation against the Government or public authority. 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."
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 545 - G N Ray - Full Document

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

13. The ambit, scope and amplitude of the doctrine of promissory estoppel has been evolved in this country over the last quarter of a century through successive decisions of this Court starting with Union of India v. Indo-Afghan Agencies Ltd. [(1968) 2 SCR 366 :AIR 1968 SC 718] Reference in this connection may be made with advantage to Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council [(1970) 1 SCC 582 : (1970) 3 SCR 854] ; Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. [(1979) 2 SCC 409 :
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 1143 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next