Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.23 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
M/S Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors on 12 December, 1978
In India, the doctrine of promissory estoppel has been given an expansive
interpretation which would be seen from the words of His Lordship P. N. Bhagawati, J. (as His
Lordship then was) in the case of Motilal Padmapat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of
U.P., reported in (1979) 2 SCC 409 wherein in paragraph No.12, His Lordship speaking for
the Court observed that there was no valid reason why promissory estoppel should not be
allowed to found a cause of action where, in order to satisfy the equity, it is necessary to do
so. In paragraph No.24 of the said judgment, His Lordship explained the concept of the
Page No.# 19/33
doctrine of promissory estoppels which is reproduced herein below:-
M/S Manuelsons Hotels Private Limited vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 11 May, 2016
In the case Manuelsons Hotels P. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala & Others reported in of
(2016) 6 SCC 766, the Supreme Court while approving the statement of law declared by
Deane J. in the case of Verwayen (supra) observed 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 Supreme Court further observed that the relief to
be given in cases involving the doctrine of promissory estoppel contains a degree of flexibility
which would ultimately render justice to the aggrieved party. Paragraph No.20 of the said
judgment is reproduced herein under:-
Antitrust - Section 26(2) Disclaimer: ... vs Chief Executive Officer, Noida & Ors. ... on 29 April, 2014
In the case of R vs. North & East Devon Health
Authority, ex p Coughlan, reported in (2001) QB 213, the doctrine of substantive
legitimate expectation was explained as follows:-
Sivanandan C.T. vs High Court Of Kerala on 14 November, 2017
37. Recently, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Sivanandan CT &
Others vs. High Court of Kerala & Others, reported in (2024) 3 SCC 799 explained the
concept of legitimate expectation under Indian law. His Lordship Dr. Justice D. Y.
Page No.# 24/33
Chandrachud, CJ explained that there are two components of the doctrine of legitimate
expectation. One is the doctrine of procedural legitimate expectation and the other is the
doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation. His Lordship speaking for the Court observed
that the claim based on doctrine of procedural legitimate expectation arises when a claimant
expect a public authority to follow a particular procedure before taking a decision. This
however is in contradistinction with the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation where
a claimant expects conferral of substantive benefit based on the existing promise or practice
of the public authority. It was observed that the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation
has now been accepted an integral part of both common law as well as Indian Jurisprudence.
Paragraph Nos.27, 38, 40, 45, 46 being relevant is quoted herein under:-
Union Of India And Ors vs Hindustan Development Corpn. And Ors on 15 April, 1993
46. From the above discussion, it is evident that the doctrine of substantive
legitimate expectation is entrenched in Indian administrative law subject to the
limitations on its applicability in given factual situations. The development of
Indian jurisprudence is keeping in line with the developments in the common
law. The doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation can be successfully
Page No.# 26/33
invoked by individuals to claim substantive benefits or entitlements based on an
existing promise or practice of a public authority. However, it is important to
clarify that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot serve as an
independent basis for judicial review of decisions taken by public authorities.
Such a limitation is now well recognised in Indian jurisprudence considering the
fact that a legitimate expectation is not a legal right. [Union of
India v. Hindustan Development Corpn., (1993) 3 SCC 499; Bannari Amman
Sugars Ltd. v. CTO, (2005) 1 SCC 625; Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. v. Union of
India, (2012) 11 SCC 1; Union of India v. P.K. Choudhary, (2016) 4 SCC 236 :
Monnet Ispat And Energy Ltd vs Union Of India And Ors on 26 July, 2012
46. From the above discussion, it is evident that the doctrine of substantive
legitimate expectation is entrenched in Indian administrative law subject to the
limitations on its applicability in given factual situations. The development of
Indian jurisprudence is keeping in line with the developments in the common
law. The doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation can be successfully
Page No.# 26/33
invoked by individuals to claim substantive benefits or entitlements based on an
existing promise or practice of a public authority. However, it is important to
clarify that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot serve as an
independent basis for judicial review of decisions taken by public authorities.
Such a limitation is now well recognised in Indian jurisprudence considering the
fact that a legitimate expectation is not a legal right. [Union of
India v. Hindustan Development Corpn., (1993) 3 SCC 499; Bannari Amman
Sugars Ltd. v. CTO, (2005) 1 SCC 625; Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. v. Union of
India, (2012) 11 SCC 1; Union of India v. P.K. Choudhary, (2016) 4 SCC 236 :
Union Of India And Anr vs Lt Col P.K. Choudhary And Ors on 15 February, 2016
46. From the above discussion, it is evident that the doctrine of substantive
legitimate expectation is entrenched in Indian administrative law subject to the
limitations on its applicability in given factual situations. The development of
Indian jurisprudence is keeping in line with the developments in the common
law. The doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation can be successfully
Page No.# 26/33
invoked by individuals to claim substantive benefits or entitlements based on an
existing promise or practice of a public authority. However, it is important to
clarify that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot serve as an
independent basis for judicial review of decisions taken by public authorities.
Such a limitation is now well recognised in Indian jurisprudence considering the
fact that a legitimate expectation is not a legal right. [Union of
India v. Hindustan Development Corpn., (1993) 3 SCC 499; Bannari Amman
Sugars Ltd. v. CTO, (2005) 1 SCC 625; Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. v. Union of
India, (2012) 11 SCC 1; Union of India v. P.K. Choudhary, (2016) 4 SCC 236 :