Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.64 seconds)Anil Kumar Srivastava vs University Of Allahabad And Anr. on 10 January, 1973
In Anil Kumar Srivastava's case, which is the decision followed in the subsequent two judgments, mentioned above, Anil Kumar Srivastava, the petitioner of that case, appeared at the M. Sc. Previous (Maths) examination. On the strength of the mark sheet of M. Sc. Previous, Anil Kumar Srivastava joined M. Sc. Final. Only a couple of days before the commencement of the final examination, 'the petitioner of that case was informed that he had been debarred from appearing at the examination because he had failed to pass the M. Sc. Previous examination. Anil Kumar Srivastava filed a writ petition. Hon'ble H.N. Seth, J. allowed the writ petition and directed the Unviersity to declare his result. The learned single Judge held that in view of the fact that the University authorities had issued the final mark sheet showing that the petitioner had passed the M. Sc. Previous, the University was estopped from restraining Anil Kumar Srivastava from appearing at the final examination. The learned single Judge also held that Section 115 of the Evidence Act was applicable to the facts of the case.
Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) ... vs B. N.Bhattacharjee & Anr on 4 May, 1979
18. What follows from the decision mentioned above, is that he who wants to rely on the principle of estoppel on the basis that he acted upon the representation of the other side must come to the court of law with clean hands. As observed by the Supreme Court in Commr. of Income-tax v. B. N. Bhattacharjee (AIR 1979 SC 1725) (supra), the soul of estoppel is equity, not facility for inequity. It is from this aspect of the matter, that we are required to consider the present case. The petitioners relied. upon the promissory estoppel on the fact of issuing of the new mark sheets by the Gorakhpur University and contended that since acting upon those mark sheets the petitioners got themselves admitted in LL. B. Part II and thereafter in LL. B. Part III and spent money and time in prosecuting their studies, the University was estopped under the law from taking a course prejudicial to the petitioners. The petitioners asserted that they had acted on the assurance of the University to their detriment.
State Of U.P. & Ors vs Hindustan Aluminium Corpn. Ltd. & Ors on 17 April, 1979
27. State of U. P. v. Hindustan Aluminium Corporation, (AIR 1979 SC 1459), was an appeal filed before the Supreme Court against a decision of this Court given in Writ Petition No. 3732 of 1979, decided on 27-4-1978 : (1978 All LJ NOC 56). In that case, the Division Bench deciding the writ petition had relied upon an earlier decision, to which one of the two Judges was a party. When the appeal was taken against that judgment, the writ petition itself was withdrawn and was dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was in error in relying upon the decision of the learned single Judge which could not be said to have subsisted after the writ petition had been, withdrawn. Similar position obtains in our case. The question of estoppel was left open by the Division Bench, and, therefore, the judgment of the learned single Judge could not be said to have been approved on that point. The decision of the learned single Judge on estoppel therefore, ceased to be a law laid down which could be taken into account while deciding this controversy in subsequent cases.
Kedar Lal Verma vs The Secretary, Board Of High School And ... on 27 August, 1979
In Kedar Lal Verma v. Secretary Board of High School and Intermediate Education, (AIR 1980 All 32), a Division Bench of this Court held that where a candidate is patently disentitled to be declared successful, the authorities, could not be estopped from correcting the mistake. The ratio is helpful in deciding the controversy involved in the present case.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1