Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 53 (0.45 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
A.C. Roy Co. And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 20 February, 1995
138. There may not be any disputes so far as the aforementioned proposition is concerned. However, the Supreme Court of India in a large number of decisions has since
considered the parameters of doctrine of legitimate expectation and inter alia held that no action can be based only on legitimate expectation. This aspect of the matter has also been considered by me in A. C. Roy Co. v. Union of India, wherein it was held :--
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
124. The question as to whether the principles of natural justice would be attracted or not depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. It has to be considered in circumstantial flexibility and situational fairness. The fact of the present case clearly suggests that in the instant case, in terms of Tata Cellular, (supra) the concerned respondent ought to have complied with the principles of natural justice. In this view of the matter it is nofnecessary to consider the other decisions cited at the bar.
New Horizons Ltd vs Union Of India on 9 November, 1994
"As countenanced in Attorney General for New South Wales' case the Court should restrain themselves and restrict such claims duly to the legal limitations. It is a well meant cautions. Otherwise a resourceful litigant having vested interests in contracts licences etc. can successfully indulge in getting welfare activities-mandated by a directive principles thwarted to further his own interests. The caution particularly in the changing scenerio,
becomes all the more important."
A. K. Roy, Etc vs Union Of India And Anr on 28 December, 1981
147. The doctrine of legitimate expecta-tion in my considered opinion has no application in contractual fields particularly when the contract stands concluded. This aspect of the matter has been considered by me in A. C. Roy v. Union of India, .
Pancham Singh vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 25 January, 1991
In a case where a concluded contract has been arrived at, there cannot be any legitimate expectation that he would be allowed to continue with contract inasmuch as indicated hereinbefore such a contingency is clearly stated in the decision of the Patna HighCourt in Pancham Singh (supra) and the other decisions referred to in Marine Engineer v. Siddeswar Halder reported in 1991 (1) Cal LJ 467, paragraphs 20 to 25 and an unreported decision of Babulal Jain, J. in Niranjan Papalia v. Hindusthan Steel Works Construction Ltd. in Matter No. 3743 of 1994 disposed of on 8th Sept. 1993.
Section 4 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Hindustan Aluminium Corporation ... on 23 December, 1982
81. However, the Hindustan Aluminium Corporation's case, (supra) has also been distinguished in Everest Coal Pvt. Ltd. v. Coal Controller reported in 90 CWN 438, in the following term :--