Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (1.35 seconds)Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Mohd. Jamal vs Union Of India & Anr on 8 July, 2013
9. The learned Single Judge found that there was
no promissory estoppel on the HPCL in the facts of the
case. The alleged assurance of the said Mr. N.A.
Biswas was not enforceable or binding on the
respondent no.1. No case of promissory estoppel,
equitable estoppel or legitimate expectation as
recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
5
the case of Mohd. Janal - Vs. - Union of India
reported in (2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases 201 was
found available to the petitioners in the facts of the
present case. The learned Single Judge also found that
the change of policy of the respondents could not
confer any cause of action on the petitioners. The
learned Single Judge found that the termination of the
Labour Contract was as per the terms and conditions
of the said contract dated 1st December, 2006
extended from time to time until 2008.
R.P. Kapur And Others vs Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon And Others on 28 October, 1960
In so far as the decision cited by the
petitioners, this Court notes that in the case of R.P.
Kapur (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
was considering a fact where allegation was made by
the writ petitioners therein, inter alia, against a Chief
Minister of the State of Punjab, to the effect that it is
at the instance of the Chief Minister that criminal and
civil proceedings were instituted against them. The
petitioners specifically alleged that the Chief Minister
was unhappy with the fact that the petitioners refused
to do his bidding. When the Chief Minister did not
respond to the allegations, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India held that the allegations against him must be
deemed to be true and correct. It was held that the
allegations could have been controverted by the Chief
Minister or any person authorized by him. It appears
that the rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India are involved in the said case and the allegations
were against the Chief Minister of the State. The said
case has no manner of application in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
Ashok Kumar Aasrekar And Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. 92 ... on 15 January, 2019
In so far as the decision in the case of Ashok
Kumar (supra) is concerned, the facts were that a DNA
Test was ordered by a Civil Court in respect of
paternity of the appellant. Upon refusal of the
appellant to undergo such DNA Test, adverse inference
was drawn against him. The dicta in paragraph 18 of
the said decision would have no manner of application
to the facts of the instant case.
Central Inland Water ... vs Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr on 6 April, 1986
25. In the Pioneer Urban Land and
Infrastructure Limited decision (supra) the Supreme
Court was considering the rights of a purchaser of a
residential flat vis-a-vis the conduct of the builder
therein. The issue was under the provisions of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The buyer of the flat
11
unit was found in a weaker bargaining position and
the Supreme Court held that he could not be
compelled to deliver the flat without compensation for
the delay. The facts of the said case are
distinguishable and, therefore, the said decision
cannot come to the aid of the petitioner.
Pioneer Urban Land And Infrastructure ... vs Govindan Raghavan on 2 April, 2019
In the Brojo Nath Ganguly decision (supra)
and Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure
Limited (supra) which cited with the approval of
paragraph 89 of the decision of Brojo Nath Ganguly
(supra), equally would have no application in the facts
of the instant case. In the Brojo Nath Ganguly's
decision (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
dealt with a case of a Clause in a contract which
empowered the employer to unilaterally terminate the
same. The employee therein did not have any option
than to accept the contract. It is in this backdrop that
the Supreme Court has held that a Clause of such
nature constituted an unlawful bargain between a
powerful employer and a meek employee.