Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 36 (0.26 seconds)
Jawahar Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 May, 2013 cites

Beharilal & Anr vs Smt. Bhuri Devi & Ors on 5 December, 1996

Reference was also made to Beharilal and another vs. Bhuri Devi (Smt.) and others, (1997) 2 SCC 279 wherein, observations had been made that though the agreement was not in conformity with Article 299(1) of the Constitution of India, the Court could read and find that the contract had been executed on behalf of the Governor. In the said case, the issue in question was whether the patta gave any right to the appellant. The Hon'ble Apex Court noticed that as per the rules which had been duly approved by the Raj Pramukh, the Mandi Committee which was represented by the Chairman and the Tehsildar, could allot plots of land to the traders and they did in fact in accordance with the Rules. A finding was recorded that the execution of patta was in conformity with the rules and thus was in substance on behalf of the Governor. Accordingly, it was held that the contract though not executed strictly in conformity with Article 299(1) of the Constitution of India but being in conformity of the rules, was not void. In the present case, there are no rules governing the disposal of the said property and only a Committee had been set up and the contract, as noticed, was never executed between the parties for disposal of the public property and the triple test not being satisfied, the said judgment would have no applicability to the facts and CWP No. 6476 of 1987 21 circumstances of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs M/S. Indo-Afghan Agencies Ltd on 22 November, 1967

The earlier decision in Union of India and others vs. Indo-Afghan Agencies Ltd, AIR 1968 SC 718, on the basis of which the petitioner is placing reliance on the point of promissory estoppel, was also distinguished on the ground that it was not a case of a contractual right and it was only seeking compliance upon the obligations which had been laid down by the Textile Commissioner in the terms of the export promotion scheme for grant of incentives to exporter.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 398 - J C Shah - Full Document

Kasinka Trading And Another, Etc. Etc. vs Union Of India And Another on 18 October, 1994

21. That this Court only has to examine whether the decision of the Minister dated 22.12.1965 was arbitrary in any manner and as pointed out by counsel for the State, the said decision is not a subject matter of challenge since only the proceedings under the P.P. Act are subject matter of writ petition. The decision not to sell the property to the tenants who are in occupation was a decision taken by the then Ministers on the ground that the price of `3,50,000/- at that point of time was also very low and a higher amount could be fetched by ejecting the tenants and there is no mala fide against the then Minister who was acting in interest of the Government and did not approve the minutes of the meeting.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 256 - M N Venkatachaliah - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next