Government allowed to change its policy

MP Mathur & Ors v. OIC & Ors, 2006 (13) SCC 706

 

Once the public interest is accepted as the superior equity which can override individual equity, the principle would be applicable. If there is a supervening public equity, the Government would be allowed to change its stand and has the power to withdraw from representation made by it which induced persons to take certain steps which may have gone adverse to the interest of such persons on account of such withdrawal. Merely because the resolution was announced for a particular period it did not mean that the Government could not amend and change the policy under any circumstances.

 

See also : Rishi Kiran Logistics decided in April, 2014  (by Sikri J)

 

Scope of Letter of Intent

A letter of intent merely indicates a parties intention to enter into a contract with the other party in future. AIR 2006 Supreme Court 871 (Dresser Rand)

 

Also see: Rishi Kiran Logistics P Ltd v. Board of Trustees of Kandla Port Trust, Judgment dated April 21, 2014 in Civil Appeal No. 4655 of 2014 [ 2014 (6) SCALE 4]

Permission to file SLP

Jasbir Singh v. Vipin Kumar Jaggi, (2001) 8 SCC 289 at page 298

Appeal has been preferred from an order passed in proceedings to which the appellant was not a party and the appellant has not challenged the order by which his application for intervention was rejected. The Supreme Court still granted permission to file SLP.

 

Permission to file SLP: When to be granted | Standing

Ram Nandan Singh v. AG Office Employees Coop. House Construction Society Ltd., (2007) 14 SCC 102

 

13. The appellants are members of the Society. They have been pursuing their cause before the High Court. They were impleaded as parties in the letters patent appeal. Not only in the capacity of interveners but also as persons aggrieved, they are, therefore, entitled to file petition for grant of special leave. The preliminary objection in regard to maintainability of the appeal raised by Ms Bagchi is rejected

Same matter pending in SC, HC not to exercise jurisdiction

Chhavi Mehrotra v. Director General, Health Services, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 434:

"It is a clear case where the High Court ought not to have exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 where the matter was clearly seized of by this Court in a petition under Article 32. The petitioner was eo nomine a party to the proceedings before this Court. It is an unhappy situation that the learned Judge of the High Court permitted himself to issue certain directions which, if implemented, would detract from the plenitude of the orders of this Court. The learned Single Judge's perception of justice of the matter might have been different and the abstinence that the observance of judicial propriety, counsels might be unsatisfactory; but judicial discipline would require that in a hierarchical system it is imperative that such conflicting exercise of jurisdiction should strictly be avoided. We restrain ourselves from saying anything more."

When the same dispute is subject matter before the Supreme Court, the High Court cannot entertain writ petition in respect of the same

Union of India v. Jaiswal Coal Co. Ltd., (1999) 5 SCC 733 

Intervention

Ram Nandan Singh v. AG Office Employees Coop. House Construction Society Ltd., (2007) 14 SCC 102 at page 107

12. In Ravi Rao Gaikwad case [(2006) 5 SCC 62] , this Court observed that the purpose of grant of application for intervention is to entitle the interveners to address arguments in support of one or the other side.