Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.54 seconds)
Smt.Vidya Devi And Others vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 10 January, 2013 cites

Shrijee Sales Corporation & Another vs Union Of India on 20 December, 1996

(3) SCR 123; AIR 1986 SC 806; Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Union of India and others, (1995) 1 SCC 274; Darshan Oil (P) Ltd., v. City and Industrial Development Corporation and another, (1995) 4 SCC 301; Shrijee Sales Corporation v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 398; Pawan Alloys and Casting (P) Ltd. v. Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board, (1997) 7 SCC 251.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 226 - Full Document

Pawan Alloys And Casting Pvt. Ltd Meerut ... vs U.P. State Electricity Board And Ors on 5 August, 1997

(3) SCR 123; AIR 1986 SC 806; Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Union of India and others, (1995) 1 SCC 274; Darshan Oil (P) Ltd., v. City and Industrial Development Corporation and another, (1995) 4 SCC 301; Shrijee Sales Corporation v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 398; Pawan Alloys and Casting (P) Ltd. v. Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board, (1997) 7 SCC 251.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 117 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

G.F.C. Ariff vs Rai Jadunath Majumdar Bahadur on 23 January, 1931

15. The doctrine of estoppel, however, admits to a significant exception, namely, that estoppel shall not be invoked to defeat a statutory provision or to enable a party to allege that though the offer is contrary to statute, the party making the offer should be held to its offer. The doctrine of estoppel cannot be invoked to legitimise an illegality and enforce an obligation that is contrary to law. A statutory CWP No.20341 of 2011 -5- provision cannot yield to the doctrine of estoppel as no one, much less a person who has altered his position, may plead that a statutory provision should be violated so as to protect the offer made to him. The principle that a plea of estoppel cannot be raised to defeat a statute is too well settled for us to discuss any further except to the extent of noticing a few judgments. 1. G.H.C. Ariff v. Jadunath Majumdar Bahadur, AIR 1931 PC 79; 2.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 135 - Full Document
1