Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (2.89 seconds)
K C Prakash vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 June, 2019 cites

Jit Ram Shiv Kumar And Ors. Etc vs State Of Haryana And Anr. Etc on 16 April, 1980

31. The petitioners in the instant case contend that a promise of re-allotment of shops post reconstruction was made to them during the meeting held on 02.04.2013 by the Deputy Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Chikkaballapur and that the respondents are now estopped by such promise. The respondents, on the other hand, rely on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's verdict in the matter of State Of Kerala and others v. Kerala Rare Earth And Minerals Limited and others reported in (2016) 6 SCC 323, M/s Jit Ram Shiv Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others reported in (1981) 1 SCC 11 and Collector, District Gwalior and another v. Cine Exhibitors Private Limited and another reported in (2012) 4 SCC 441 to state that promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to enforce a promise which was made devoid of authority. They contend that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked in the instant case, for the Deputy Commissioner was not authorized 30 to make such a promise to the petitioners. They argue that the Government Circular of 2009 had been superceded by the Government Circular No.£ÀCE 509 fEJ¯ï 2014 dated 14.08.2015 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Government Circular of 2015') and that the new circular takes away the authority of the Deputy Commissioner to make decisions under Circumstance No.3 as provided in the Government Circular of 2015. The only dispute as regards the applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel is whether the instant case falls within Circumstance No.4.
Supreme Court of India Cites 51 - Cited by 671 - P S Kailasam - Full Document

Collector Dist.Gwalior & Anr vs Cine Exhibitors P.Ltd.& Anr on 11 January, 2012

31. The petitioners in the instant case contend that a promise of re-allotment of shops post reconstruction was made to them during the meeting held on 02.04.2013 by the Deputy Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Chikkaballapur and that the respondents are now estopped by such promise. The respondents, on the other hand, rely on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's verdict in the matter of State Of Kerala and others v. Kerala Rare Earth And Minerals Limited and others reported in (2016) 6 SCC 323, M/s Jit Ram Shiv Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others reported in (1981) 1 SCC 11 and Collector, District Gwalior and another v. Cine Exhibitors Private Limited and another reported in (2012) 4 SCC 441 to state that promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to enforce a promise which was made devoid of authority. They contend that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked in the instant case, for the Deputy Commissioner was not authorized 30 to make such a promise to the petitioners. They argue that the Government Circular of 2009 had been superceded by the Government Circular No.£ÀCE 509 fEJ¯ï 2014 dated 14.08.2015 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Government Circular of 2015') and that the new circular takes away the authority of the Deputy Commissioner to make decisions under Circumstance No.3 as provided in the Government Circular of 2015. The only dispute as regards the applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel is whether the instant case falls within Circumstance No.4.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 16 - D Misra - Full Document
1   2 Next