Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)
M/S. Malana Power Co.Ltd. vs Dir. General Of Foreign Trade (Policy) & ... on 28 November, 2016
cites
Director General Of Foreign Trade vs M/S Kanak Exports on 27 October, 2015
15. So far as the question of reliance on Kanak Exports (supra) goes, the
Court is of the opinion that the analogy drawn between the kind of
amendment involved in that case and what we are concerned with here is
inapt.
State Of Rajasthan & Anr vs J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. & Anr on 28 September, 2004
16. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that whilst the doctrine of
promissory estoppel bars the State or Government agencies from setting up
imperative and necessity as defense, nevertheless if on the facts it can be
W.P.(C)6064/2000 Page 11
shown that whole promissor to its word would be inequitable having regard
to the larger public interest, such estoppel cannot be a ground for claim (see
Shree Sidhbali Steels Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2011) 3 SCC
193; State of Rajasthan v. J.K. Udyog Ltd. (2004) 7 SCC 673 and Pawan
Alloys & Casting Pvt. Ltd. v. Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board, (1997)
7 SCC 251. In the present case too, this Court is of the opinion that since
the duty refund eligibility was linked to the payment of duty, to offset the
competitive additions that imported goods would have over domestically
manufactured ones, the parity achieved by another policy compelled the
government to amend the Hand Book of Procedures in the manner it did.
There is clearly neither any arbitrariness nor violation of doctrine of
promissory estoppel.
Pawan Alloys And Casting Pvt. Ltd Meerut ... vs U.P. State Electricity Board And Ors on 5 August, 1997
16. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that whilst the doctrine of
promissory estoppel bars the State or Government agencies from setting up
imperative and necessity as defense, nevertheless if on the facts it can be
W.P.(C)6064/2000 Page 11
shown that whole promissor to its word would be inequitable having regard
to the larger public interest, such estoppel cannot be a ground for claim (see
Shree Sidhbali Steels Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2011) 3 SCC
193; State of Rajasthan v. J.K. Udyog Ltd. (2004) 7 SCC 673 and Pawan
Alloys & Casting Pvt. Ltd. v. Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board, (1997)
7 SCC 251. In the present case too, this Court is of the opinion that since
the duty refund eligibility was linked to the payment of duty, to offset the
competitive additions that imported goods would have over domestically
manufactured ones, the parity achieved by another policy compelled the
government to amend the Hand Book of Procedures in the manner it did.
There is clearly neither any arbitrariness nor violation of doctrine of
promissory estoppel.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992
1