Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.40 seconds)M/S Shree Sidhbali Steels Ltd. And ... vs State Of U.P. And Others on 13 August, 2019
In the case of Sidhbali Steels Limited vs. State of U.P., reported in
Page No.# 19/24
(2011) 3 SCC 193, the Supreme Court held that where public interest
warrants, the principles of promissory estoppel cannot be involved. The
Government can change the policy in public interest.
Shrijee Sales Corporation & Another vs Union Of India on 20 December, 1996
As can be seen from the judgments of the Supreme Court in Shrijee Sales
Corporation (supra) and Kanak Exports (supra), an exemption or
incentives given by the government can be withdrawn, as it is a privilege of the
government. Further, the principle of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked as
the withdrawal of the Subsidy on fly ash has been done in public interest, which
is a matter of policy. In the present case, the promise of Transport Subsidy in
respect of fly ash was to be given only on the condition that commercial
production of the cement commenced during the validity of the Transport
Subsidy Scheme. It is not a case of all subsidies being withdrawn by the
Government, as it is only the subsidy given on fly ash being withdrawn, in terms
of the Freight Subsidy Scheme, 2013.
Union Of India vs M/S Unicorn Industries on 19 September, 2019
In
Page No.# 22/24
Unicorn Industries (supra) the Supreme Court had further held that
withdrawal of an exemption in public interest was a matter of policy and the
Courts could not bind the government to it's policy decision for all times to
come, irrespective of the satisfaction of the government that a change in policy
was necessary in the public interest. In the present case, the Transport Subsidy
Scheme had been withdrawn after having a relook at the same by the
government and in terms of Clause 3 of the O.M. dated 01.04.2007, the
government had reserved the right to modify the NEIIPP, 2007 in public interest.
Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 October, 1985
32. As can be seen from the various judgments of the Supreme Court, a
promise would be enforceable against the government at the instance of the
promisee, if an entity changes it's legal position to it's detriment. In that case,
the government cannot be permitted to resile from it's promise. However, as
held by the Supreme Court in Express Newspaper Private Limited (supra),
the principle of estoppel does not operate at the level of government policy.
M/S Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors on 12 December, 1978
"The next question is whether the fact that the Notification No.66
mentioned the period during which it was to remain in force, would make
any difference to the situation. In other words, could it be said that an
exemption notified without specifying the period within which the
exemption would remain in force, would be withdrawn in public interest
Page No.# 18/24
but not the one in which a period has been so specified? Once public
interest is accepted as the superior equity which can override individual
equity, the principle should be applicable even in cases where a period has
been indicated. The Government is competent to resile from a promise
even if there is no manifest public interest involved, provided, of course,
no one is put in any adverse situation which cannot be rectified. To adopt
the line of reasoning in Emmanuel Ayodeji Ajayi v. Briscoe (1964) 3
All.E.R, 556 quoted in M.P. Sugar Mills (supra) even where there is no
such overriding public interest, it may still be within the competence of
the Government to resile from the promise on giving reasonable notice
which need not be a formal notice, giving the promisee a reasonable
opportunity of resuming his position provided, of course, it is possible for
the promisee to restore the status quo ante. If, however, the promisee
cannot resume his position, the promise would become final and
irrevocable."
M/S. Hero Motocorp Ltd. vs Union Of India on 17 October, 2022
In the case of Hero Motocorp Limited vs. Union of India and Others ,
reported in (2023) 1 SCC 386, the Supreme Court has held that when an
exemption granted earlier is withdrawn by a subsequent notification based on a
change in policy, even in such cases, the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot
be invoked. Where the change of policy is in the public interest, the State
cannot be prevented from withdrawing an incentive which it had granted
through an earlier notification. Paragraph 70 to 72 of the said judgment is as
follows :
Kasinka Trading And Another, Etc. Etc. vs Union Of India And Another on 18 October, 1994
"70. It is further to be noted that this Court has also consistently held
that when an exemption granted earlier is withdrawn by a subsequent
notification based on a change in policy, even in such cases, the doctrine
of promissory estoppel could not be invoked. It has been consistently held
that where the change of policy is in the larger public interest, the State
cannot be prevented from withdrawing an incentive which it had granted
through an earlier notification. Reliance in this respect could be placed on
the judgments of this Court in the cases of Kasinka Trading and another
vs. Union of India and Another, Shrijee Sales Corpn. vs. Union of India,
State of Rajasthan vs. Mahaveer Oil Industries, Shree Sidhbali Steels Ltd.
vs. State of U.P., and Director General of Foreign Trade vs. Kanak Exports.
State Of Rajasthan & Anr vs M/S. Mahaveer Oil Industries & Ors on 22 April, 1999
71. Recently, this Court, in the case of Unicorn Industries (supra), after
surveying the earlier judgments of this Court on the issue has observed
thus:
Director General Of Foreign Trade vs M/S Kanak Exports on 27 October, 2015
As can be seen from the judgments of the Supreme Court in Shrijee Sales
Corporation (supra) and Kanak Exports (supra), an exemption or
incentives given by the government can be withdrawn, as it is a privilege of the
government. Further, the principle of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked as
the withdrawal of the Subsidy on fly ash has been done in public interest, which
is a matter of policy. In the present case, the promise of Transport Subsidy in
respect of fly ash was to be given only on the condition that commercial
production of the cement commenced during the validity of the Transport
Subsidy Scheme. It is not a case of all subsidies being withdrawn by the
Government, as it is only the subsidy given on fly ash being withdrawn, in terms
of the Freight Subsidy Scheme, 2013.