Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 35 (0.33 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors on 26 October, 1998
(emphasis supplied)
In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has relied upon the earlier judgment in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, [1998] 8 SCC 1, wherein the Supreme Court has held that alternate remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. But, in the present case, the order of termination has nothing to do with the either the principles of natural justice, as termination without notice is permissible under the contract, or with the principles of equality guaranteed under the Constitution of India, and therefore, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Abl International Ltd. & Anr vs Export Credit Guarantee Corportion Of ... on 18 December, 2003
"40. Although ordinarily a superior Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction would not enforce the terms of a contract qua contract, it is trite that when an action of the State is arbitrary or discriminatory and, thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, a writ petition would be maintainable. (See ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited, [2004] 3 SCC 553.)"
Delhi Development Authority, N.D. & Anr vs Joint Action Committee,Allottee Of Sfs ... on 13 December, 2007
42. It is true that in a landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authority and Another v. Joint Action Committee, Allottee of SFS Flats and Others, [2008] 2 SCC 672, the Supreme Court has given the true meaning for the word "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and also held that reasonableness and fairness is the heart and soul of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in the following words:
State Of Arunachal Pradesh vs Nezone Law House, Assam on 1 April, 2008
50. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Nezone Law House, [2008] 5 SCC 609 to substantiate his contention that doctrine of promissory estoppel will apply to the facts of the case on hand is not tenable. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relying upon various English judgments and with approval, has held that doctrine of promissory estoppel has assumed importance in recent years, while observing that the said principle has been evolved on the principles of equity to avoid injustice. It is not known as to how, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, the said celebrated concept of promissory estoppel is applicable, especially in the circumstances that it is the specific case of the respondents that they have never directed the second appellant to purchase the land from Mrs.Sumathi and also in the circumstance that even when Mrs.Sumathi has leased out the land to the second respondent, all infrastructure has been put up by them and therefore, there was actually no need for the second appellant to spend any amount to put up any structure. That apart, when the terms of the contract are very clear that the contract of service can be terminated without assigning any reason, there is no question of any promissory estoppel or applicability of the principles of legitimate expectation.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Manubhai Dharmasinhbhai Gajera & Ors on 16 May, 2008
41. The judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in United India Insurance Company Limited v. Manubhai Dharmasinhbhai Gajera and Others, JT 2008 (5) SC 457, relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants relates to insurance cover as per the Rule under Insurance Rules, 1939, by which the respondent before the Supreme Court, who suffered a coronary disease and was admitted in the Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre and underwent Angioplasty, made a claim which was allowed by the United India Insurance Company Limited, on the basis that the mediclaim policy started in 1995 was renewed by paying requisite premium. It appears that once again the respondent had to undergo Angioplasty in 2001, which was also reimbursed by the Insurance Company. Thereafter, in respect of a minor operation also the medical expenses were reimbursed. However, the fourth time, when the respondent underwent a by-pass surgery, the Insurance Company has not admitted the same and the claim of renewal of insurance was also refused on the ground "High Claim Ratio". It was in those circumstances, when a plea was raised on behalf of the insurance company that insurance being contractual in nature, the writ petition before the High Court was not maintainable, the Supreme Court has held as follows:
Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Collie ... vs K.Suresh Reddy & Ors on 19 August, 2003
52. The observation made by the Supreme Court in Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Collie Sangham v. K.Suresh Reddy and Others, JT 2004 [6] SC 70 that "Every man has the legitimate expectation regarding a set of things or facts, which have continued over a period of time, to have become settled so that he can plan his future course of action on the basis of such acceptable situation. Unsettling such facts after long delay upsets not only his entire programme but also affects in the long run the society itself.", was in the context of a validation certificate issued in the year 1974 in favour of the vendors and vendees, which were sought to be cancelled by the Joint Collector, by exercising the suo motu powers under Section 50-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950, especially in the circumstance that various authorities, including Tahsildar, Special Tahsildar and Authorised Officer under the Act have held that the validation certificates cannot be set aside.
Mrs. Sanjana M. Wig vs Hindustan Petro Corporation Ltd on 15 September, 2005
In Sanjana M.Wig v. Hindustan Petro Corporation Ltd., 2005 [5] CTC 292, while explaining about the plenary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court has held that the lis involved must be of public law character and by relying on the judgment in Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, referred supra, held that under three circumstances the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be enforced, as follows: