Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.41 seconds)

Union Of India And Ors vs Hindustan Development Corpn. And Ors on 15 April, 1993

In Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corpn. [Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corpn., (1993) 3 SCC 499] it was held that in cases involving an interest based on legitimate expectation, the Court will not interfere on grounds of procedural fairness and natural justice, if the deciding authority has been allotted a full range of choice and the decision is taken fairly and objectively."
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 545 - G N Ray - Full Document

Antitrust - Section 26(2) Disclaimer: ... vs Chief Executive Officer, Noida & Ors. ... on 29 April, 2014

36. Under English Law, the doctrine of promissory estoppel has developed parallel to the doctrine of legitimate expectations. The 8 (1992) 4 SCC 477 9 2020 SCC OnLine SC 968 W.P. (C) 9346/2021 & connected matters Page 25 of 50 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHAWNA Signing Date:25.02.2022 18:24:48 doctrine of legitimate expectations is founded on the principles of fairness in government dealings. It comes into play if a public body leads an individual to believe that they will be a recipient of a substantive benefit. The doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation has been explained in R v. North and East Devon Health Authority, ex p Coughlan in the following terms:
Competition Commission of India Cites 7 - Cited by 849 - Full Document

Major General R.S. Balyan vs The Secretary, Ministry Of ... on 31 October, 2006

"[despite dicta to the contrary [Rootkin v. Kent CC, [1981] 1 WLR 1186 (CA); Rv. Jockey Club Ex p RAM Racecourses Ltd., [1993] A.C. 380 (HL); R v. IRC Ex p Camacq Corp, [1990] 1 WLR 191 (CA)], it is not normally necessary for a person to have changed his position or to have acted to his detriment in order to qualify as the holder of a legitimate expectation [R v. Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods Ex p Hamble Fisheries (Offshore) Ltd., (1995) 2 All ER 714 (QB)]... Private law analogies from the field of estoppel are, we have W.P. (C) 9346/2021 & connected matters Page 26 of 50 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHAWNA Signing Date:25.02.2022 18:24:48 seen, of limited relevance where a public law principle requires public officials to honour their undertakings and respect legal certainty, irrespective of whether the loss has been incurred by the individual concerned [Simon Atrill, „The End of Estoppel in Public Law?‟ (2003) 62 Cambridge Law Journal 3]."
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 27 - L S Panta - Full Document

M.P. Oil Extraction And Anr. Etc vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors on 9 July, 1997

19. Mr. Sen seeks to draw sustenance from the expanded application of the doctrine of legitimate expectation to contend that the respondents must establish that their actions do not stand tainted by manifest arbitrariness. It was submitted that wider the extent of the discretionary power conferred on W.P. (C) 9346/2021 & connected matters Page 23 of 50 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHAWNA Signing Date:25.02.2022 18:24:48 an authority, the greater would be the responsibility to ensure that it is not exercised arbitrarily. Dealing specifically with a change in policy and how it would coalesce with the principles of natural justice, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in M.P. Oil Extraction & Anr. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.7 and more particularly paragraph 44 of the report which reads thus: -
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 457 - G N Ray - Full Document

Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) And Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 24 August, 2017

22. Mr. Sen has also cited for the consideration of the Court the enunciation on the subject of a legitimate expectation as contained in the authoritative and seminal work of Sir William Wade in "Administrative Law", 10th Edition. Mr. Sen has additionally sought to assail the action of the respondents based upon the principles of dignity as explained by the Constitution Bench in K.S. Puttuswamy & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.10. Mr Sen submits that the right of a dignified existence which is a constitutional right would extend to safeguarding and securing the right of the petitioners to occupy the public premises in light of the immense contribution made by them for the preservation and propagation of Indian culture.
Supreme Court of India Cites 294 - Cited by 384 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document
1   2 Next