Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (0.65 seconds)
Nirmal Vyas vs Enegry Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan ... on 6 April, 2026 cites

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

Such contention by respondents is untenable, as similar arguments were rejected in Nestle India (supra), and it has been held that the State can be compelled to issue a notification to give effect to its promise (Brahmputra Metallics, supra). Past conduct of the State shows consistent extension of exemptions, even retrospectively (e.g., 2019 notification extending exemption from 01.04.2018-31.03.2020 despite prior lapse), thereby reinforcing legitimate expectation of continuity under the Solar Policy, 2019.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 92 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

State Of Punjab vs M/S Nestle India Ltd. & Anr on 5 May, 2004

Such contention by respondents is untenable, as similar arguments were rejected in Nestle India (supra), and it has been held that the State can be compelled to issue a notification to give effect to its promise (Brahmputra Metallics, supra). Past conduct of the State shows consistent extension of exemptions, even retrospectively (e.g., 2019 notification extending exemption from 01.04.2018-31.03.2020 despite prior lapse), thereby reinforcing legitimate expectation of continuity under the Solar Policy, 2019.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 221 - R Pal - Full Document

State Of Bihar & Ors vs Kalyanpur Cements Ltd on 8 January, 2010

(Uploaded on 07/04/2026 at 08:09:40 PM) (Downloaded on 07/04/2026 at 08:45:20 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:15325-DB] (11 of 29) [CW-1151/2023] a. State of Jharkhand v. Brahmputra Metallics Ltd.1 b. State of Punjab v. Nestle India Ltd.2 c. State of Bihar v. Kalyanpur Cement Ltd.3 d. Manuelsons Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala.4 e. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of U.P.5 B. AMENDMENT IN POLICY IS ARBITRARY I. Any amendment withdrawing exemption must disclose cogent reasons; none are provided in the notification dated 10.05.2022. Clause 3.3 of the Policy permits modification only for valid and germane reasons.
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 64 - S S Nijjar - Full Document

M/S Manuelsons Hotels Private Limited vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 11 May, 2016

(Uploaded on 07/04/2026 at 08:09:40 PM) (Downloaded on 07/04/2026 at 08:45:20 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:15325-DB] (11 of 29) [CW-1151/2023] a. State of Jharkhand v. Brahmputra Metallics Ltd.1 b. State of Punjab v. Nestle India Ltd.2 c. State of Bihar v. Kalyanpur Cement Ltd.3 d. Manuelsons Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala.4 e. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of U.P.5 B. AMENDMENT IN POLICY IS ARBITRARY I. Any amendment withdrawing exemption must disclose cogent reasons; none are provided in the notification dated 10.05.2022. Clause 3.3 of the Policy permits modification only for valid and germane reasons.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 74 - R F Nariman - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next