Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (2.10 seconds)Article 166 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M/S Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors on 12 December, 1978
[See Century Spinning Co. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal
Council, AIR (1971) SC 1021, Radhakrishna v. State of Bihar, AIR (1977) SC
1496, Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P., [1979] 2 SCC
409, Union of India v. Godfrey Philips Indian Ltd., [1985] 4 SCC 369 and
Dr. Ashok Kumar Maheshwari v. State of U.P. & Another, (1998) 2 Supreme
100].
Union Of India & Ors vs Godfrey Philips India Ltd. Etc. Etc on 30 September, 1985
[See Century Spinning Co. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal
Council, AIR (1971) SC 1021, Radhakrishna v. State of Bihar, AIR (1977) SC
1496, Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P., [1979] 2 SCC
409, Union of India v. Godfrey Philips Indian Ltd., [1985] 4 SCC 369 and
Dr. Ashok Kumar Maheshwari v. State of U.P. & Another, (1998) 2 Supreme
100].
Kasinka Trading And Another, Etc. Etc. vs Union Of India And Another on 18 October, 1994
In Kasinka Trading and Anr. v. Union of
India and Anr., [1995] 1 SCC 274 it was held that the doctrine of
promissory estoppel represents a principle evolved by equity to avoid
injustice.
G.B. Mahajan And Ors vs Jalgaon Municipal Council And Ors on 13 September, 1990
This Court's observations in G.B. Mahajan v. Jalgaon Municipal Council, AIR
(1991) SC 1153 are kept out of lush field of administrative policy except
where policy is inconsistent with the express or implied provision of a
statute which creates the power to which the policy relates or where a
decision made in purported exercise of power is such that a repository of
the power acting reasonably and in good faith could not have made it. But
there has to be a word of caution. Something overwhelming must appear
before the Court will intervene. That is and ought to be a difficult onus
for an applicant to discharge. The Courts are not very good at formulating
or evaluating policy. Sometimes when the Courts have intervened on policy
grounds the Court's view of the range of policies open under the statute or
of what is unreasonable policy has not got public acceptance. On the
contrary, curial views of policy have been subjected to stringent
criticism.
Punjab Communications Ltd vs Union Of India & Others on 4 May, 1999
As was observed in Punjab Communications Ltd. v. Union of India of Others,
AIR (1999) SC 1801, the change in policy can defeat a substantive
legitimate expectation if it can be justified on "Wednesbury
reasonableness." The decision-maker has the choice in the balancing of the
pros and cons relevant to the change in policy. It is, therefore, clear
that the choice of police is for the decision-maker and not the Court. The
legitimate substantive expectation merely permits the Court to find out if
the change of policy which is the cause for defeating the legitimate
expectation is irrational or perverse or one which no reasonable person
could have made. A claim based on merely legitimate expectation without
anything more cannot ipso facto give a right. Its uniqueness lies in the
fact that it covers the entire span of time; present, past and future. How
significant is the statement that today is tomorrows' yesterday. The
present is as we experience it, the past is a present memory and future is
a present expectation. For legal purposes, expectation is not same as
anticipation. Legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred only if it is
founded on the sanction of law.
The Parbhani Transport Co-Operative ... vs The Regional Transport ... on 7 March, 1960
Reasonableness of restriction is to be determined in an objective manner
and from the standpoint of interest of the general public and not from the
standpoint of the interests of persons upon whom the restrictions have been
imposed or upon abstract consideration. A restriction cannot be said to be
unreasonable merely because in a given case, it operates harshly. In
determining whether there is any unfairness involved the nature of the
right alleged to have taken infringed, the underlying purpose of the
restriction imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be
remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing
condition at the relevant time enter into judicial verdict, the
reasonableness of the legitimate expectation has to be determined with
respect to the circumstances relating to the trade or business in question.
Canalisation of a particular business in favour of even a specified
individual is reasonable where the interests of the country are concerned
or where the business affects the economy of the country. (See Parbhani
Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Regional Transport Authority,
Aurangabad and Others, AIR (1960) SC 901; Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v.
Union of India, AIR (1974) SC 365; Hari Chand Sarda v. Mizo District
Council and Another, AIR (1967) SC 829; Krishnan Kakkanth v. Government of
Kerala and Others, AIR (1997) SC 128 and Union of India and Another v.
International Trading Co. and Another, [2003] 5 SCC 437.
Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd vs Union Of India on 26 November, 1973
Reasonableness of restriction is to be determined in an objective manner
and from the standpoint of interest of the general public and not from the
standpoint of the interests of persons upon whom the restrictions have been
imposed or upon abstract consideration. A restriction cannot be said to be
unreasonable merely because in a given case, it operates harshly. In
determining whether there is any unfairness involved the nature of the
right alleged to have taken infringed, the underlying purpose of the
restriction imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be
remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing
condition at the relevant time enter into judicial verdict, the
reasonableness of the legitimate expectation has to be determined with
respect to the circumstances relating to the trade or business in question.
Canalisation of a particular business in favour of even a specified
individual is reasonable where the interests of the country are concerned
or where the business affects the economy of the country. (See Parbhani
Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Regional Transport Authority,
Aurangabad and Others, AIR (1960) SC 901; Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v.
Union of India, AIR (1974) SC 365; Hari Chand Sarda v. Mizo District
Council and Another, AIR (1967) SC 829; Krishnan Kakkanth v. Government of
Kerala and Others, AIR (1997) SC 128 and Union of India and Another v.
International Trading Co. and Another, [2003] 5 SCC 437.
Lala Hari Chand Sarda vs Mizo District Council & Anr on 28 October, 1966
Reasonableness of restriction is to be determined in an objective manner
and from the standpoint of interest of the general public and not from the
standpoint of the interests of persons upon whom the restrictions have been
imposed or upon abstract consideration. A restriction cannot be said to be
unreasonable merely because in a given case, it operates harshly. In
determining whether there is any unfairness involved the nature of the
right alleged to have taken infringed, the underlying purpose of the
restriction imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be
remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing
condition at the relevant time enter into judicial verdict, the
reasonableness of the legitimate expectation has to be determined with
respect to the circumstances relating to the trade or business in question.
Canalisation of a particular business in favour of even a specified
individual is reasonable where the interests of the country are concerned
or where the business affects the economy of the country. (See Parbhani
Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Regional Transport Authority,
Aurangabad and Others, AIR (1960) SC 901; Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v.
Union of India, AIR (1974) SC 365; Hari Chand Sarda v. Mizo District
Council and Another, AIR (1967) SC 829; Krishnan Kakkanth v. Government of
Kerala and Others, AIR (1997) SC 128 and Union of India and Another v.
International Trading Co. and Another, [2003] 5 SCC 437.