The Chief Commissioner (Now Lt. ... vs Kitty Puri And Anr. on 10 January, 1972
A denial of illegal favor is not discrimination : The Chief Commissioner and others v. Mrs. Kitty Puri and another, .
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.28 seconds)Jit Ram Shiv Kumar And Ors. Etc vs State Of Haryana And Anr. Etc on 16 April, 1980
(8) Mr. Gupta next contended that the petitioner had all along been shown senior with effect from the date of his appointment in the Bharti School and the Corporation and the Delhi Administration are bound by the promissory estoppel and at any rate they could not change his seniority without giving him an opportunity of being heard. Firstly, I have my own reservations about the judicial enactment of the doctrine of promissory estoppel in a country where legislation on contract and evidence holds the field. The rigour of the principle was to some extent mitigated in M/s. Jit Ram Shiv Kumar and others v. The State of Haryana and another, . However, here there is no clear and unequivocal promise held out express or implied by the Corporation or the Administration to the petitioner that his seniority shall be or has ever been counted from the date he is claiming.
M/S Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors on 12 December, 1978
No such legal relationship was created as it would be inequitable to permit the respondents to go back upon it : M/s Motilal Padampal Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others, .
K. Jagannadham vs District Collector, Kurnool And Anr. on 26 October, 1964
Mr. Gupta cited Miss Singeeta Srivastava v. Prof U.N. Singh and others, , and K. Jagannadham v. District Collector, Kurnool and another, to support the argument that equitable estoppel operated against the respondents. Equitable estoppel means the effect of voluntary conduct of a party whereby he is precluded from asserting right against another who has justifiably relied upon such conduct and changed his position so that he will suffer injury if the former is allowed to repudicate the conduct. The seniority was not at any time given to the petitioner from any back date though his past services were allowed to be counted for all other purposes. How has the petitioner changed his position for worse on the basis of any such understanding, if any ? What is the right that the respondents seek to assert ? To determine seniority according to the resolution of take over and various other conditions attached to it. Tentative or draft seniority lists cannot be construed as an estoppel.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
T. Venkatasubbiah Setty vs Commissioner, Corporation Of The City ... on 25 August, 1967
It is not possible to hold that the petitioner had no knowledge of the resolution. I do not think that such decisions require to be published to individual teachers. Moreover. Article 14 of the Constitution does not require authorities to act arbitrarily in all cases if they have done so in one case : T. Venkatsubbiah Setty V. Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Bangalore and Others, Air 1968 Mys. 251 (1).
1