Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.37 seconds)M/S Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors on 12 December, 1978
The
doctrine of promissory estoppel would be displaced in such a
case, because on the facts, equity would not require that the
Government or public authority should be held bound by the
promise or representation made by it. This aspect has been dealt
with fully in Motilal Sugar Mills case and we find ourselves
wholly in agreement with what has been said in that decision on
this point."
Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995
Union Of India And Ors vs Hindustan Development Corpn. And Ors on 15 April, 1993
In Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation (supra),
the doctrine of legitimate expectation was explained in the following words:
Section 81 in Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Chittoor Zilla Vyavasayadarula ... vs A.P. State Electricity Board & ... on 3 November, 2000
2 SCC 343, Gujarat Housing Board Engineers Association and
another v. State of Gujarat and others (1994) 2 SCC 24, Chittoor Zilla
Vyavasayadarula Sangham v. A.P. State Electricity Board and others
(2001) 1 SCC 396, Chairman and MD, BPL Limited v. S.P. Gururaja
and others (2003) 8 SCC 567 and two judgments of the High Court in CWP
No.9626 of 2002 - Punjab State Industries and Export Corporation v.
17
State of Punjab decided on 14.5.2004 and Punjab Financial Corporation
Employees Welfare Association v. Punjab Financial Corporation 2004
(2) ILR (P & H) 113 and held the decision of the Government not to
sanction change of land use from industrial to residential was in the nature of
a direction which could be issued under Article 90 of the Memorandum of
Association of the Corporation.
The Punjab Financial Corporation ... vs Punjab Financial Corporation And Ors. on 14 August, 2003
2 SCC 343, Gujarat Housing Board Engineers Association and
another v. State of Gujarat and others (1994) 2 SCC 24, Chittoor Zilla
Vyavasayadarula Sangham v. A.P. State Electricity Board and others
(2001) 1 SCC 396, Chairman and MD, BPL Limited v. S.P. Gururaja
and others (2003) 8 SCC 567 and two judgments of the High Court in CWP
No.9626 of 2002 - Punjab State Industries and Export Corporation v.
17
State of Punjab decided on 14.5.2004 and Punjab Financial Corporation
Employees Welfare Association v. Punjab Financial Corporation 2004
(2) ILR (P & H) 113 and held the decision of the Government not to
sanction change of land use from industrial to residential was in the nature of
a direction which could be issued under Article 90 of the Memorandum of
Association of the Corporation.
E. P. Royappa vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 23 November, 1973
In this context, reference can
usefully be made to the decision of the Constitution Bench in E.P. Royappa
v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 4 SCC 3. In that case, the petitioner, who
was, at one time holding the post of Chief Secretary of the State, questioned
the decision of the Government to post him as an Officer-on-Special Duty.
One of the grounds on which he attacked the decision of the Government
was that the Chief Minister of the State, Shri K. Karunanidhi was ill-
disposed against him. While dealing with the question whether the transfer
and posting of the petitioner was vitiated due to malafides, Bhagwati, J.
speaking for self and Y.V. Chandrachud and V.R. Krishna Iyer, JJ.,
observed:
Jit Ram Shiv Kumar And Ors. Etc vs State Of Haryana And Anr. Etc on 16 April, 1980
25. A contrary view was expressed by another two-Judge Bench in Jit
Ram v. State of Haryana (1981) 1 SCC 11, but the law laid down in
32
Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. (supra) was
reiterated in Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. (1985) 4 SCC
369, which was decided by a three-Judge Bench. Bhagwati, C.J. with whom
the other two members of the Bench agreed on the exposition of law relating
to the doctrine of promissory estoppel, observed:
Union Of India & Ors vs Godfrey Philips India Ltd. Etc. Etc on 30 September, 1985
25. A contrary view was expressed by another two-Judge Bench in Jit
Ram v. State of Haryana (1981) 1 SCC 11, but the law laid down in
32
Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. (supra) was
reiterated in Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. (1985) 4 SCC
369, which was decided by a three-Judge Bench. Bhagwati, C.J. with whom
the other two members of the Bench agreed on the exposition of law relating
to the doctrine of promissory estoppel, observed: