An analysis of the applications of doctrine of promissory estoppel in India
🧾 Essentials of Promissory Estoppel
For the doctrine to apply, the following elements must be present:
Clear and Unequivocal Promise: The promise must be clear and unambiguous.
Reliance by the Promisee: The promisee must have relied on the promise.
Detrimental Change in Position: The promisee must have altered their position to their detriment based on the promise.
Inequity to Allow Withdrawal: It would be inequitable to allow the promisor to go back on their promise.
⚖️ Landmark Indian Case Laws
1. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1979)
In this case, the Uttar Pradesh government had promised tax exemptions to industries setting up new units. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills established a unit based on this promise. However, the exemption was later withdrawn. The Supreme Court held that the government was estopped from withdrawing the promise, emphasizing that a promise made by the government, upon which a party has relied to their detriment, cannot be withdrawn arbitrarily.
2. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1988)
The government issued an exemption notification under the Excise Act and later withdrew it. The petitioner claimed promissory estoppel. The Supreme Court held that the doctrine cannot be used against the exercise of legislative functions or where enforcement would conflict with statutory provisions or public interest.
3. Kasinka Trading v. Union of India (1995)
The government issued a customs duty exemption and later rescinded it. The Court ruled that public interest overrides promissory estoppel, and the government was justified in withdrawing the exemption due to changes in policy. This case highlighted the limitations of the doctrine.
4. State of Bihar v. Suprabhat Steel Ltd. (1999)
The state government offered sales tax exemptions, but later withdrew them. The Court upheld the withdrawal, stating that promissory estoppel cannot be invoked if the promise is contrary to law or public policy.
5. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. B.D. Singhal (2021)
This case addressed the principle of promissory estoppel in the context of public policy and governmental decisions. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a promise or representation can give rise to a cause of action, not just a defense, thereby expanding the application of estoppel in administrative matters.
⚠️ Limitations and Exceptions
While the doctrine is equitable, its application is not without limitations:
Public Policy: The government can withdraw promises if it serves public interest.
Statutory Provisions: If a promise contradicts existing laws, it cannot be enforced.
Equitable Considerations: If enforcing the promise would lead to injustice or unfairness, the courts may refuse to apply the doctrine.
🏛️ Conclusion
Promissory estoppel serves as a vital tool in ensuring fairness and preventing unjust outcomes in situations where a party has relied on a promise to their detriment. However, its application is subject to certain limitations, particularly when public policy or statutory provisions are at stake. The Indian judiciary has consistently balanced the need to uphold promises with the necessity to protect the public interest, as evidenced by the aforementioned case laws.
RELATED Blog
0 comments