Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.68 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
Section 8 in The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Micro, Small And Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006
Union Of India And Anr vs Lt Col P.K. Choudhary And Ors on 15 February, 2016
Article 299 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Food Corporation Of India vs M/S. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries on 3 November, 1992
17. If, because of a previous practice, which is clear and consistent, a
party is led to legitimately expect that such practice shall be
continued, the withdrawal or discontinuance of such practice
arbitrarily and without any justifiable reasons would invite wrath of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Whether the expectation of
the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in a particular context, is a
question of fact in each case. Whenever the question arises, it is to be
determined not according to the claimant's perception but in larger
public interest wherein other more important considerations may
outweigh what would otherwise have been the legitimate expectation
of the claimant. A bona fide decision of the public authority reached
in this manner would satisfy the requirement of non-arbitrariness and
withstand judicial scrutiny. The doctrine of legitimate expectation
gets assimilated in the rule of law and operates in our legal system in
this manner and to that extent. (excerpts drawn from the judgment of
Kamdhenu Cattle case)
M/S Manuelsons Hotels Private Limited vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 11 May, 2016
Hon‟ble the Supreme
WPC 2784/2021 & connected petitions 11
Court in Manuelsons Hotels Private Limited v. State of Kerala
and ors, 2016 (6) SCC 766 examined the doctrine of promissory
estoppel as laid down in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd v.
State of U.P, (1979) 2 SCC 409 and as followed in State of Punjab
v. Nestle India Limited, (2004) 6 SCC 465. It is held that the
doctrine of promissory estoppel is a doctrine whose foundation is
that an unconscionable departure by one party from the subject
matter of an assumption which may be of fact or law, present or
future, and which has been adopted by the other party as the basis of
some course of conduct, act or omission, should not be allowed to
pass muster. The central principle of the doctrine is that the law will
not permit an unconscionable or, more accurately, unconscientious
departure by one party from the subject matter of an assumption
which has been adopted by the other party as the basis of some
relationship, course of conduct, act or omission which would operate
to that other party's detriment, if the assumption be not adhered to for
the purposes of the litigation. The doctrine of promissory estoppel
would be attracted where one party, by clear and unequivocal
representation invites the other party to act upon such promise and
that other party, acting bona fide on such representation acts to his
detriment or changes his course of conduct by some act or omission,
in such eventuality the party making representation shall be held by
the representation or the promise made. It is further held that it is not
the law that there can be no promissory estoppel against the
Government in the exercise of its sovereign or executive functions. It
WPC 2784/2021 & connected petitions 12
is true that taxation is a sovereign or governmental function, but no
distinction can be made between the exercise of a sovereign or
governmental function and a trading or business activity of the
Government, so far as the doctrine of promissory estoppel is
concerned. Where the Government makes a promise knowing or
intending that it would be acted on by the promisee and, in fact, the
promisee, acting in reliance on it, alters his position, the Government
would be held bound by the promise and the promise would be
enforceable against the Government at the instance of the promisee,
notwithstanding that there is no consideration for the promise and
the promise is not recorded in the form of a formal contract as
required by Article 299 of the Constitution. It is elementary that in a
republic governed by the rule of law, no one, howsoever high or low,
is above the law. Everyone is subject to the law as fully and
completely as any other and the Government is no exception. It is not
necessary for the petitioner to show that it has suffered detriment and
it is enough that petitioner had relied upon the promise or
representation held out, and altered its position relying upon such
assurance.
M/S Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors on 12 December, 1978
Hon‟ble the Supreme
WPC 2784/2021 & connected petitions 11
Court in Manuelsons Hotels Private Limited v. State of Kerala
and ors, 2016 (6) SCC 766 examined the doctrine of promissory
estoppel as laid down in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd v.
State of U.P, (1979) 2 SCC 409 and as followed in State of Punjab
v. Nestle India Limited, (2004) 6 SCC 465. It is held that the
doctrine of promissory estoppel is a doctrine whose foundation is
that an unconscionable departure by one party from the subject
matter of an assumption which may be of fact or law, present or
future, and which has been adopted by the other party as the basis of
some course of conduct, act or omission, should not be allowed to
pass muster. The central principle of the doctrine is that the law will
not permit an unconscionable or, more accurately, unconscientious
departure by one party from the subject matter of an assumption
which has been adopted by the other party as the basis of some
relationship, course of conduct, act or omission which would operate
to that other party's detriment, if the assumption be not adhered to for
the purposes of the litigation. The doctrine of promissory estoppel
would be attracted where one party, by clear and unequivocal
representation invites the other party to act upon such promise and
that other party, acting bona fide on such representation acts to his
detriment or changes his course of conduct by some act or omission,
in such eventuality the party making representation shall be held by
the representation or the promise made. It is further held that it is not
the law that there can be no promissory estoppel against the
Government in the exercise of its sovereign or executive functions. It
WPC 2784/2021 & connected petitions 12
is true that taxation is a sovereign or governmental function, but no
distinction can be made between the exercise of a sovereign or
governmental function and a trading or business activity of the
Government, so far as the doctrine of promissory estoppel is
concerned. Where the Government makes a promise knowing or
intending that it would be acted on by the promisee and, in fact, the
promisee, acting in reliance on it, alters his position, the Government
would be held bound by the promise and the promise would be
enforceable against the Government at the instance of the promisee,
notwithstanding that there is no consideration for the promise and
the promise is not recorded in the form of a formal contract as
required by Article 299 of the Constitution. It is elementary that in a
republic governed by the rule of law, no one, howsoever high or low,
is above the law. Everyone is subject to the law as fully and
completely as any other and the Government is no exception. It is not
necessary for the petitioner to show that it has suffered detriment and
it is enough that petitioner had relied upon the promise or
representation held out, and altered its position relying upon such
assurance.