Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.24 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Beg Raj Singh vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 18 December, 2002
According to them, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Director General of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce, New Delhi v. M/s.R.B. & Sons, Chennai and another reported in (2004) 5 CTC 596, has already distinguished the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Beg Raj Singh v. State of UP., reported in (2003)1 SCC 726. A Hon'ble Division Bench held that a Court cannot direct extension of the period of licence, lease or other grant, where it is for a fixed period of licence, lease or other grant, where it is for a fixed period and the court must maintain judicial restraint in this connection." According to the respondents, if the licensee or lessee was prevented to operate for a part of the period of the licence or lease, then his remedy is to get refund of proportionate amount of license or refund of proportionate amount of licence or lease fee or compensation for any damage, he might have suffered, but the period of licence or lease cannot be extended by the Court.
Rama. Muthuramalingam vs The Deputy Superintendent Of Police on 3 December, 2004
24. The respondents have further submitted that courts must exercise self restraint and should not encroach into the domain of the Executive or the Legislature, as held by the Court in Rama Muthuramalingam v. Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in (2004) 4 LW 737. It is also well settled that Court cannot add or delete from a statute as that is the function of the Legislature or its delegates.
Electronics Corporation Of India Ltd vs Secretary,Revenue ... on 5 May, 1999
26. It is further submitted that in W.A.No.669 of 2009, a Hon'ble Division Bench observed that, Where a statute occupies the field, the principles of equity and promissory estoppels have no role to play, vide Electronics Corporations of India Ltd. v. Secretary Revenue Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh [1999] 4 SCC 458. As per Rule 8(8)(ii) of the abovesaid Rules, the lease shall expire on the date specified in the lease deed and no case extension of the period of lease shall be made. The respondents therefore submitted that when there is a specific bar created under law for such extension of the period of lease, which is exhaustive in nature, the prayer of the petitioner, governed and bound by the specific contract, entered into by him, with the respondents, being statutory in nature, should not be granted. Hence, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.