Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 51 (0.34 seconds)Kerala State Beverages (M And M) Corp ... vs P P Suresh And Ors. Etc. Etc. on 4 October, 2019
In P.P. Suresh (supra) while considering the assurance
given by the Government as reflected from the Government Order
dated 20/2/2002 to provide employment to displaced Abkari
workers, adjusting them against 25% of the daily wage vacancies
that would arise in the Corporation, it was held that no vested
right was created by virtue of such an assurance.
34.2. The Government Resolution dated 30/4/2005, did
not create a horizontal reservation, as per Clause - 7 (7) therein,
on the playing of any particular sport, but the same was created
in respect of a sport approved/recommended by the authorities as
stated therein and which sport was to be approved/recommended
was at the sole discretion of the Indian Olympic Association and
the Maharashtra Olympic Association. Thus, even if a horizontal
reservation was created, a sportsperson, playing a particular sport
::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2021 06:37:11 :::
WP 4832 of 2018.odt
85
could not claim an absolute right, for the benefit of reservation,
as the playing of such particular sport, was at the discretion of the
above authorities, apart from which under Clause-5 of the
Government Resolution dated 30/4/2005, the right to make
changes in the sports in Appendix-A, was kept reserved by the
State, in itself. In the instant case also what has been indicated or
provided by the Government Resolution dated 30/4/2005, was
the reservation of 5% for sportspersons in the matter of
employment, on complying criteria as laid down therein and
nothing else, which was based upon the anticipated continuance
of the then existing law/assurance which was the Government
Resolution dated 30/4/2005 and thus it cannot be said that any
vested right was created in the matter. This 5% reservation in the
matter of employment, has not been taken away by the
Government Resolution dated 1/7/2016, but only the criteria has
been changed to accommodate a larger number of sportspersons
and the number of institutions where such 5% reservation for
sportspersons would become available has been enlarged, so that
a greater number of vacancies would become available.
Union Of India And Ors vs Hindustan Development Corpn. And Ors on 15 April, 1993
In Union of India Vs. Hindustan Development
Corpn., (1993) 3 SCC 499, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in regard to
the doctrine of legitimate expectation, had held as under :
The State Of Jharkhand vs Brahmputra Metallics Limited on 1 December, 2020
13.19. The Hon'ble Apex Court thereafter in State of
Jharkhand and Others Vs Brahmputra Metallics Ltd., Ranchi and
Another 2020 SCC OnLine SC 968 dilated upon the doctrine of
promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation and upon a
consideration of Monnet Ispat and Energy (supra) held that for
the application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel, there has
to be a promise based on which the promisee has acted to its
prejudice, whereas in contrast while applying the doctrine of
legitimate expectation, the primary considerations are
reasonableness and fairness in State action and considering
Lt. Col.
P. Mahendran vs State Of Karnataka on 5 December, 1989
(iv) P. Mahendram Vs. State of Karnataka (1990) 1
SCC 411
M/S Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors on 12 December, 1978
The doctrine of promissory estoppel would be displaced in
such a case, because on the facts, equity would not require
that the Government or public authority should be held
bound by the promise or representation made by it. This
aspect has been dealt with fully in Motilal Sugar Mills case
[(1979) 2 SCC 409 : 1979 SCC (Tax) 144 : (1979) 2 SCR
641] and we find ourselves wholly in agreement with what
has been said in that decision on this point."
Union Of India & Ors vs Godfrey Philips India Ltd. Etc. Etc on 30 September, 1985
In Godfrey Philips India Ltd. (supra), the Court after
noticing Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills (supra) and Jit Ram
(supra) expressed its disagreement with the observations in Jit
Ram (supra) to the extent that they conflicted with the statement
of law in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills (supra) and introduced
reservations cutting down the full width and amplitude of the
propositions of law laid down in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills
(supra) and held as under :
P & T Scheduled Caste/Tribe Employees' ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 29 August, 1988
WP 4832 of 2018.odt
86
34.3. That apart Article 16 (4) of the Constitution is only
an enabling provision as held in P&T Scheduled Caste/Tribe
Employees' Welfare Assn. Vs. Union of India (1988) 4 SCC 147,
and the State would always have the liberty to make changes in
policies, based upon the change in circumstances, criteria,
conditions, unworkability of the policy, addressing a larger public
interest and similar factors.
Monnet Ispat And Energy Ltd vs Union Of India And Ors on 26 July, 2012
13.19. The Hon'ble Apex Court thereafter in State of
Jharkhand and Others Vs Brahmputra Metallics Ltd., Ranchi and
Another 2020 SCC OnLine SC 968 dilated upon the doctrine of
promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation and upon a
consideration of Monnet Ispat and Energy (supra) held that for
the application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel, there has
to be a promise based on which the promisee has acted to its
prejudice, whereas in contrast while applying the doctrine of
legitimate expectation, the primary considerations are
reasonableness and fairness in State action and considering
Lt. Col.
Lalit Sehgal vs State Of Goa And Ors. on 13 December, 1994
7.2. Reliance is placed upon the judgments in P.
Mahendran and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others, (1990)
1 SCC 411; Food Corporation of India Vs. M/s Kamdhenu Cattle
Feed Industries, (1993) 1 SCC 71; Union of India and others Vs.
Hindustan Development Corporation and others, (1993) 3 SCC
499; Madras City Wine Merchants' Association and another Vs.
State of T.N. and another, (1994) 5 SCC 509 ; Lalit Sehgal Vs.
State of Goa and others, 1996 (1) Mh.L.J. 447 ; P.T.R. Exports
(Madras) Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Union of India and others,
(1996) 5 SCC 268; Shrijee Sales Corporation and another Vs.
Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 398; Sales Tax Officer and another
Vs. Shree Durga Oil Mills and another, (1998) 1 SCC 572 ; Dr.
::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2021 06:37:11 :::
WP 4832 of 2018.odt
17
Ashok Kumar Maheshwari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (1998) 2
SCC 502; State of Punjab and others Vs. Ramlubhaya Bagga and
others, (1998) 4 SCC 117; State of Rajasthan and another Vs.
Mahaveer Oil Industries and others, (1999) 4 SCC 357 ; Punjab
Communications Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others, (1999) 4
SCC 727; Federation of Railway Officers Association and others
Vs. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 289 ; Bannari Amman Sugars
Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and others, (2005) 1 SCC 625 ;
State Bank's Staff Union (Madras Circle) Vs. Union of India and
others, (2005) 7 SCC 584; State of Orissa and others Vs.
Gopinath Dash and others, AIR 2006 SC 651; Directorate of Film
Festivals and others Vs. Gaurav Ashwin Jain and others, AIR 2007
SC 1640; Union of India and another Vs. Lieutenant Colonel P.K.
Choudhary and others, (2016) 4 SCC 236; Girjamata Labour
Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others,
2017 (2) Mh.L.J. 622 and Kerala State Beverages (M and M)
Corporation Limited Vs. P.P. Suresh and others, (2019) 9 SCC 710.