Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.28 seconds)
The Employees State Insurance ... vs Sherabkha Nasharkha on 27 April, 1983 cites

Sri Sita Ram Sugar Mills Ltd., ... vs Their Workmen Intervener: The State Of ... on 21 March, 1960

12. It was then urged on behalf of the Corporation that even if the respondent's case does not strictly come within the purview of Section 115 of the Evidence Act, the respondent could not have appealed under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. As observed by the Supreme Court in M. P. Sugar Mills v. State of U.P. , promissory estoppel principle is evolved to avoid injustice. What is necessary is that the promisee should have altered his position in reliance on the promise. In the instant case, as pointed out above, no injustice or injury has resulted to the Corporation on account of the application made by the respondent for commutation or benefit derived by him under that application. The Corporation has also not altered its position in any way. On account of any promise held out by the respondent. In my opinion, therefore there is no bar of promissory estoppel either as urged on behalf of the Corporation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 64 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document
1   2 Next