Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 40 (1.12 seconds)Section 18 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 29 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Krishena Kumar And Anr. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 July, 1990
(iii) Krishena Kumar v. Union of India reported in AIR 1990 SUPREME COURT
1782.
Section 50 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Sharda Devi vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 8 January, 2003
Over and above that, one other decision of the Honourable Apex Court
in Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar reported in (2003) 3 SCC 128 was also taken
into consideration.
Dr. G.H. Grant vs State Of Bihar on 30 March, 1965
It is not as though while rendering the judgment
in Meher Rusi Dalal's case, the Honourable Apex Court had not taken into
consideration the earlier decision in G.H.Grant's case.
Union Of India & Ors vs Godfrey Philips India Ltd. Etc. Etc on 30 September, 1985
The principle was reaffirmed in Union of India v. Godfrey Philips
India Ltd.which noted that a Division Bench of two Judges of this Court in Jit
Ram Shiv Kumar v. State of Haryana had differed from the view taken by an
earlier Division Bench of two Judges in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of
U.P. on the point whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel could be defeated
by invoking the defence of executive necessity, and holding that to do so was
wholly unacceptable reference was made to the well accepted and desirable
practice of the later Bench referring the case to a larger Bench when the
learned Judges found that the situation called for such reference.