Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.22 seconds)
Inhabitants Of Sheva Shirshu Doda vs Ut Of J&K And Others on 1 March, 2023 cites

Nagubai Ammal & Others vs B. Shama Rao & Others on 26 April, 1956

Where one knowingly accepts the benefits of a contract, or conveyance, or of an order, he is estopped from denying the validity of, or the binding effect of such contract, or conveyance, or order upon himself. This rule is applied to ensure equity, however, it must not be applied in such a manner so as to violate the principles of what is right and of good conscience. [Vide Nagubai Ammal v. B. Shama Rao [AIR 1956 SC 593] , CIT v. V. MR. P. Firm Muar [AIR 1965 SC 1216] , Ramesh Chandra Sankla v. Vikram Cement [(2008) 14 SCC 58 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 706 : AIR 2009 SC 713] , Pradeep Oil 14 Corpn. v. MCD [(2011) 5 SCC 270 : (2011) 2 SCC (Civ) 712 : AIR 2011 SC 1869] , Cauvery Coffee Traders v. Hornor Resources (International) Co. Ltd. [(2011) 10 SCC 420 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 685] and V. Chandrasekaran v. Administrative Officer [(2012) 12 SCC 133 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 136 : JT (2012) 9 SC 260] .]
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 565 - S J Imam - Full Document

R.N. Gosain A vs Yashpal Dhir on 23 October, 1992

In R.N. Gosain v. Yashpal Dhir [R.N. 13 Gosain v. Yashpal Dhir, (1992) 4 SCC 683] this Court has observed as under: (SCC pp. 687-88, para 10) "10. Law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. This principle is based on the doctrine of election which postulates that no party can accept and reject the same instrument and that 'a person cannot say at one time that a transaction is valid and thereby obtain some advantage, to which he could only be entitled on the footing that it is valid, and then turn round and say it is void for the purpose of securing some other advantage'."
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 281 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs V. Mr. P. Firm, Muar on 26 October, 1964

Where one knowingly accepts the benefits of a contract, or conveyance, or of an order, he is estopped from denying the validity of, or the binding effect of such contract, or conveyance, or order upon himself. This rule is applied to ensure equity, however, it must not be applied in such a manner so as to violate the principles of what is right and of good conscience. [Vide Nagubai Ammal v. B. Shama Rao [AIR 1956 SC 593] , CIT v. V. MR. P. Firm Muar [AIR 1965 SC 1216] , Ramesh Chandra Sankla v. Vikram Cement [(2008) 14 SCC 58 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 706 : AIR 2009 SC 713] , Pradeep Oil 14 Corpn. v. MCD [(2011) 5 SCC 270 : (2011) 2 SCC (Civ) 712 : AIR 2011 SC 1869] , Cauvery Coffee Traders v. Hornor Resources (International) Co. Ltd. [(2011) 10 SCC 420 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 685] and V. Chandrasekaran v. Administrative Officer [(2012) 12 SCC 133 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 136 : JT (2012) 9 SC 260] .]
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 235 - Full Document

Mohammad Maqbool Lone And Others vs Farhat Farooq Lone And Others on 1 February, 2021

C. Learned counsel has further submitted that on the directions of the Division Bench of this Court in PIL No.794/2009 titled Mohammad Maqbool Lone versus State and others, the then Government of Jammu and Kashmir, Industries and Commerce department has issued an order vide No.104 Ind of 2015 dated 14- 07-2015, in which it was stated that:-
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - V C Koul - Full Document

Ramesh Chandra Sankla Etc vs Vikram Cement Etc on 8 July, 2008

Where one knowingly accepts the benefits of a contract, or conveyance, or of an order, he is estopped from denying the validity of, or the binding effect of such contract, or conveyance, or order upon himself. This rule is applied to ensure equity, however, it must not be applied in such a manner so as to violate the principles of what is right and of good conscience. [Vide Nagubai Ammal v. B. Shama Rao [AIR 1956 SC 593] , CIT v. V. MR. P. Firm Muar [AIR 1965 SC 1216] , Ramesh Chandra Sankla v. Vikram Cement [(2008) 14 SCC 58 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 706 : AIR 2009 SC 713] , Pradeep Oil 14 Corpn. v. MCD [(2011) 5 SCC 270 : (2011) 2 SCC (Civ) 712 : AIR 2011 SC 1869] , Cauvery Coffee Traders v. Hornor Resources (International) Co. Ltd. [(2011) 10 SCC 420 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 685] and V. Chandrasekaran v. Administrative Officer [(2012) 12 SCC 133 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 136 : JT (2012) 9 SC 260] .]
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 543 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Deepak Kumar Etc vs State Of Haryana & Ors.Etc on 27 February, 2012

D. The learned counsel further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Deepak Kumar versus State of Haryana and others decided on 27th February, 2012, has directed all the State Governments and Union Territories to frame rules in light of the guidelines issued/passed in the aforesaid judgment, wherein, the grant of mineral concession to all the units concerned with extraction of mines and minerals was made as a pre-condition. Learned counsel referred to Section 23C of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 which empowers the State Government to frame the rules by virtue of the erstwhile State Government has issued the J&K Minor Mineral Concession, Storage, Transportation of Minerals and prevention of Illegal Mining Rules, 2016 issued vide SRO 105 of 2016 dated 31.03.2016. Subsequently the Government of Jammu and Kashmir has promulgated the Jammu and Kashmir Minor Mineral Exploitation and Processing Rules, 2017 notified vide SRO 302 dated 19.07.2017 in order to streamline the Minor Mineral based industries, wherein, it was made mandatory for all the existing/fresh units to obtain the license for their operations under aforesaid SRO from the Department of Geology and Mining after obtaining clearances from other departments like No Objection Certificates from concerned Deputy Commissioner, consent to WP (C) No.639/2022 Page 13 of 27 operate from J&K Pollution Control Board, No Objection Certificates from Fisheries and Irrigation & Flood Control Department, consent from minor mineral lessee, Registration from District Industrial Centre and some other mandatory restricted zones.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 430 - Full Document

M/S.Cauvery Coffee Traders,Mangalore vs M/S.Hornor Resources (Intern.)Co.Ltd on 13 September, 2011

Where one knowingly accepts the benefits of a contract, or conveyance, or of an order, he is estopped from denying the validity of, or the binding effect of such contract, or conveyance, or order upon himself. This rule is applied to ensure equity, however, it must not be applied in such a manner so as to violate the principles of what is right and of good conscience. [Vide Nagubai Ammal v. B. Shama Rao [AIR 1956 SC 593] , CIT v. V. MR. P. Firm Muar [AIR 1965 SC 1216] , Ramesh Chandra Sankla v. Vikram Cement [(2008) 14 SCC 58 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 706 : AIR 2009 SC 713] , Pradeep Oil 14 Corpn. v. MCD [(2011) 5 SCC 270 : (2011) 2 SCC (Civ) 712 : AIR 2011 SC 1869] , Cauvery Coffee Traders v. Hornor Resources (International) Co. Ltd. [(2011) 10 SCC 420 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 685] and V. Chandrasekaran v. Administrative Officer [(2012) 12 SCC 133 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 136 : JT (2012) 9 SC 260] .]
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 177 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 Next