Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.44 seconds)
Vairavikulam Lime Products Private ... vs Government Of India, Ministry Of ... on 19 June, 2006 cites

Kasinka Trading And Another, Etc. Etc. vs Union Of India And Another on 18 October, 1994

22.2. The matter was taken to the Supreme Court by the Board. Before the Supreme Court, the decisions in Kasinka Trading v. Union of India and Shrijee Sales Corporation v. Union of India were cited by the Board, to show that it was open to the respondent Board to withdraw the concession or rebate even before the expiry of the period, on the ground of public policy and the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be pressed into service for imparting such an exercise by the Board.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 256 - M N Venkatachaliah - Full Document

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

The next case is Shrijee Sales Corporation v. Union of India , wherein A.M. Ahmadi, C.J., speaking for the Bench considered the correctness of the aforesaid decision in Kasinka Trading. A.M. Ahmadi, C.J., while upholding the notification in Shrijee Sales Corporation, would hold that the principle of promissory estoppel is applicable against the Government, but in case there is a supervening public equity, the Government would be allowed to change its stand and to withdraw the representation made by it, which induced persons to take certain steps. It is only if the Court is satisfied, on proper and adequate material placed by the Government that overriding public interest requires that the Government should not be held bound by the promise but should be free to act unfettered by it, that the Court would refuse to enforce the promise against the Government. The Court would not act on the mere ipse dixit of the Government, for it is the Court which has to decide and not the Government whether the Government should be held exempt from liability and the burden would be upon the Government to show that the public interest in the Government acting otherwise than in accordance with the promise is so overwhelming that it would be inequitable to hold the Government bound by the promise and the Court would insist on a highly rigorous standard of proof in the discharge of this burden.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 226 - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan & Anr vs M/S. Mahaveer Oil Industries & Ors on 22 April, 1999

In State of Rajasthan v. Mahaveer Oil Industries 1999 (4) S.C.C.357, the Supreme Court examined the tenability of the withdrawal of tax exemption scheme even during the currency of exemption scheme. The Sales Tax Incentive Scheme for Industries 1987 was notified by the Rajasthan Government, exempting subject to certain conditions, new industrial units from tax under the State Act as well as the Central Act on sale of goods manufactured by them for sale out of the State for a specified period. Even during the currency of the scheme, the Government notified the oil extraction and manufacturing industry in Annexure B to the scheme thereby rendering the said industry ineligible for the benefit of the scheme. On facts, the Government found that the scheme had failed to achieve its object and had rather adversely affected the oil industry. Therefore, it was held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel could not include the Government from issuing such notification. With the result, notification was held to be valid.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 59 - S V Manohar - Full Document
1   2 3 Next