Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.33 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Jit Ram Shiv Kumar And Ors. Etc vs State Of Haryana And Anr. Etc on 16 April, 1980
Jit Ram's case clearly lays down that in the case of a promissory estoppel, the court can enforce compliance by public authority of the obligation laid on him if he arbitrarily or on his mere whim ignores the promises made by him on behalf of the Government. If on the basis of promissory estoppel certain rights under the 1979 scheme can be claimed by the petitioners and if there is a corresponding obligation on the implementing authority and if the implementing authority arbitrarily declines to discharge its obligations, then it is obvious that the right claimed by the petitioners could be enforced under article 226 of the Constitution of India.
M/S Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors on 12 December, 1978
The Division Bench, therefore, found that the decision in Motilal Padampat's case and the decision in the Gujarat case were distinguishable on facts and could not assist the petitioners.
Satwant Singh Sawhney vs D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport ... on 10 April, 1967
"Article 14 confers a right by enacting a prohibition which in form, at least, is absolute." (paragraph 9.14)
The right of equality under article 14 is a very valuable fundamental right and any violation thereof can be challenged under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The guarantee of equal protection clearly extends to purely executive or administrative order unsupported by any statute : (see Satwant Singh v. Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi ). Any arbitrary exercise of power of discretion is clearly challengeable under article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Bihar Eastern Gangetic ... vs Sipahi Singh & Others on 1 September, 1977
Thus under the provisions of the scheme, the Government deals with these industrial units at individual levels. It is obvious that such units and the Government were both acting on the assumption that their mutual rights and obligations would be governed by the provisions of the scheme. Though, therefore, it will be necessary for a person, who seeks to rely on the doctrine of promissory estoppel, to show that certain promises or representations were made to him, it is not necessary that these promises or representations must be made expressly only in a communication addressed to that individual. The Government had expressly stated in the resolution that the package of incentives was being offered with a view to achieve dispersal of industries outside the Bombay-Thane-Belapur belt and if a person satisfies the conditions laid down in the scheme and has acted on the promises and the representations made in such scheme, they could validly be relied upon for the purposes of invoking the principle of promissory estoppel.