Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.27 seconds)
Manmohan Singh And Ors. vs The Chairman, Delhi Development ... on 1 February, 1992 cites

Union Of India & Ors vs Godfrey Philips India Ltd. Etc. Etc on 30 September, 1985

(11) In Union of India and others v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. , the Supreme Court clearly upheld the principles of promissory estoppel, applicable to a valid executive order of the Government except when it would be inequitable to do so. The Government, in the facts of the case, was held bound by promissory estoppel to grant the exemption until its revocation from excise duty to assesseds when such a representation was made within the competence of the Government and the Board.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 574 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

N.P. Verma & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 January, 1989

(12) In P.N.Verma and others v. Union of India and others Air 1985 Delhi 417, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the action of the Dda in refixing the price of the flats on different criteria is liable to be struck down on ground of doctrine of promissory estoppel and doctrine of arbitrariness. The action of the Dda in revising the estimates, otherwise than on the terms of the original contract, was, therefore, held illegal and liable to be quashed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 12 - M M Dutt - Full Document

District Local Board vs Krishna Sakharam Patil And Ors. on 17 December, 1948

THE Division Bench further held as follows: "IN the present case.after the aforesaid two schemes were introduced by the respondents, the petitioner-applicants had registered themselves and had deposited huge amounts as registration charges. Therefore, the petitioners had acted to their deteriment on the basis of the solemn promise given to them in the brochures issued by the respondents. They have been waiting for their flats for several years and after about 7 years when their turns came to own the flats, they are faced with the letters issued by the D.D.A. which arc impossible for them to comply with. Thus the result is that the petitioners are being denied the right to own their flat and suffer consequences. In the circumstances, the respondent is clearly estopped from acting contrary to the promise made to the citizens who have acted on the said promise and the doctrine of promissory estoppel is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case."
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1