Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 35 (0.24 seconds)M/S Anand Buttons Ltd vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 10 December, 2004
“56. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 is not
meant to perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage negative
equality. Thus, even if some other similarly situated persons
have been granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake,
such order does not confer any legal right on the petitioner to get
the same relief. (Vide Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh AIR
1995 SC 705; Yogesh Kumar v. Government of NCT of Delhi
AIR 2003 SC 1241; Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana AIR
2005 SC 565; K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P. AIR 2006 SC 898;
Krishan Bhatt v. State of J&K (2008) 9 SCC 24; Upendra
22
Narayan Singh (supra); and Union of India v. Kartick Chandra
Mondal AIR 2010 SC 3455).
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
K.K. Bhalla vs State Of M.P. & Ors on 13 January, 2006
“56. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 is not
meant to perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage negative
equality. Thus, even if some other similarly situated persons
have been granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake,
such order does not confer any legal right on the petitioner to get
the same relief. (Vide Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh AIR
1995 SC 705; Yogesh Kumar v. Government of NCT of Delhi
AIR 2003 SC 1241; Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana AIR
2005 SC 565; K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P. AIR 2006 SC 898;
Krishan Bhatt v. State of J&K (2008) 9 SCC 24; Upendra
22
Narayan Singh (supra); and Union of India v. Kartick Chandra
Mondal AIR 2010 SC 3455).
M/S Asharfi Rice International vs State Of Haryana Through Financial ... on 12 October, 2011
4. Learned counsel for the appellants had relied upon the
decision of this Court in Narbadi Devi case (Supra) in which
this Court has granted an increase of 12% per annum
cumulatively relying upon the decisions in Asharfi & Ors.
(Supra). Though the High Court granted 12% increase but not
on a cumulative basis.
Maharaj Krishan Bhatt & Anr vs State Of J.&K. & Ors on 1 August, 2008
“56. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 is not
meant to perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage negative
equality. Thus, even if some other similarly situated persons
have been granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake,
such order does not confer any legal right on the petitioner to get
the same relief. (Vide Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh AIR
1995 SC 705; Yogesh Kumar v. Government of NCT of Delhi
AIR 2003 SC 1241; Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana AIR
2005 SC 565; K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P. AIR 2006 SC 898;
Krishan Bhatt v. State of J&K (2008) 9 SCC 24; Upendra
22
Narayan Singh (supra); and Union of India v. Kartick Chandra
Mondal AIR 2010 SC 3455).
Section 18 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 24 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Superintendent & Legal ... vs Corporation Of Calcutta on 7 December, 1966
In Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v.
Corporation of Calcutta AIR 1967 SC 997 this Court also considered the
question of a decision based upon concession.