Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.24 seconds)Article 300A in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Public Provident Fund Act, 1968
Section 115 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Mercantile Bank Of India, Ltd. vs The Central Bank Of India, Ltd. on 24 January, 1935
Where the conduct is negligent or consists wholly of
omission, there must be a duty to the person misled
(Merchantile Bank vs. Central Bank, 1938 AC 287 at p.
304, and National Westminster Bank v. Barclays Bank
International, 1975 Q.B. 654).
Pratima Chowdhury vs Kalpana Mukherjee & Anr on 10 February, 2014
82. We are also of the view, that the principle of
estoppel/promissory estoppel, is not applicable in a
situation, where the original position, which the
individual enjoyed before altering his position (by
opting, or deemingly opting - for being governed by
'the 1999 Scheme') can be restored. For the instant
proposition, reference may be made to the judgment
in Pratima Chowdhury v. Kalpana Mukherjee, (2014) 4
SCC 196, wherein it was held as under:-
Reserve Bank Of India & Anr vs Cecil Dennis Solomon & Anr on 4 December, 2003
7. Counsel for the petitioners relied upon a judgment in the
case of Reserve Bank of India Vs. Secidennis and another:
Union Of India vs Tushar Ranjan Mohanty on 14 July, 1994
2004(9) SCC 461 whereby the condition to make regulations have
been specified. Counsel for the petitioners also relied upon a
judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty
(28 of 30)
[ CW-5450/2009]
: 1994(5) SCC 584 for revoking of the regulations not being with
retrospective effect.
Selvi J.Jayalalithaa & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 30 September, 2013
He has
also relied upon a judgment in the case of J. Jayalalithaa and
others Vs. State of Karnataka and others: 2014(2) SCC 401 to as
to establish that the things in law had to be done in a particular
manner.