Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.24 seconds)
Dsidc vs Naresh Gupta [Along With Lpa Nos. ... on 29 March, 2006 cites

G.B. Mahajan And Ors vs Jalgaon Municipal Council And Ors on 13 September, 1990

11. This Court's observations in G. B. Mahajan v. Jalgaon Municipal Council are kept out of the lush filed of administrative policy except where policy is inconsistent with the express or implied provision of a statute which creates the power to which the policy relates or where a decision made in purported exercise of power is such that a repository of the power acting reasonably and in good faith could not have made it. But there has to be a word of caution. Something overwhelming must appear before the Court will intervene. That is and ought to be a difficult onus for an applicant to discharge. The courts are not very good at formulating or evaluating policy. Sometimes when the courts have intervened on policy grounds the courts view of the range of policies open under the statute or of what is unreasonable policy has not got public acceptance. On the contrary, curial views of policy have been subjected to stringent criticism.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 371 - N D Ojha - Full Document

Punjab Communications Ltd vs Union Of India & Others on 4 May, 1999

14. As was observed in Punjab Communications Ltd. v. Union of India the change in policy can defeat a substantive legitimate expectation if it can be justified on Wednesbury reasonableness . The decision -maker has the choice in the balancing of the pros and cons relevant to the change in policy. It is therefore, clear that the choice of policy is for the decision-maker and not the court. The legitimate substantive expectation merely permits the court to find out if the change of policy which is the cause for defeating the legitimate expectation is irrational or perverse or one which no reasonable person could have made. A claim based on merely legitimate expectation without anything more cannot ipso facto give a right. Its uniqueness lies in the fact that it covers the entire span of time; present, past and future. How significant is the statement that today is tomorrow's yesterday. The present is as we experience it, the past is a present memory and future is a present expectation. For legal purposes, expectation is not same as anticipation. Legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred only if it is founded on the sanction of law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 277 - M J Rao - Full Document

Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd vs Union Of India on 26 November, 1973

17. Reasonableness of restriction is to be determined in an objective manner and from the standpoint of interests of the general public and not from the stand point of the interests of persons upon whom the restrictions have been imposed or upon abstract consideration. A restriction cannot be said to be unreasonable merely because in a given case, it operates harshly. In determining whether there is any unfairness involved, the nature of the right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restriction imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing condition at the relevant time enter into the judicial verdict, the reasonableness of the legitimate expectation has to be determined with respect to the circumstances relating to the trade or business in question. Canalization of a particular business in favor of even a specified individual is reasonable where the interests of the Page 1171 country are concerned or where the business affects the economy of the country. (See Parbhani Transport Coop Society Ltd. v. RTA, Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd v. Union of India , Hari Chand Sarda v. Mizo Distt.
Supreme Court of India Cites 43 - Cited by 98 - A N Ray - Full Document

Lala Hari Chand Sarda vs Mizo District Council & Anr on 28 October, 1966

17. Reasonableness of restriction is to be determined in an objective manner and from the standpoint of interests of the general public and not from the stand point of the interests of persons upon whom the restrictions have been imposed or upon abstract consideration. A restriction cannot be said to be unreasonable merely because in a given case, it operates harshly. In determining whether there is any unfairness involved, the nature of the right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restriction imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing condition at the relevant time enter into the judicial verdict, the reasonableness of the legitimate expectation has to be determined with respect to the circumstances relating to the trade or business in question. Canalization of a particular business in favor of even a specified individual is reasonable where the interests of the Page 1171 country are concerned or where the business affects the economy of the country. (See Parbhani Transport Coop Society Ltd. v. RTA, Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd v. Union of India , Hari Chand Sarda v. Mizo Distt.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 87 - J M Shelat - Full Document

T.Lakshmipathi & Ors vs P.Nithyananda Reddy & Ors on 31 March, 2003

It does not countenance repetition of a wrong action to bring both wrongs on a par. Even if hypothetically it is accepted that a wrong has been committed in some other cases by introducing a concept of negative equality the appellant cannot strengthen its case. It has to establish strength of its case on some other basis and not by claiming negative equality. (See Union of India v. International Trading Co.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 717 - R C Lahoti - Full Document
1