Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.75 seconds)Monnet Ispat And Energy Ltd vs Union Of India And Ors on 26 July, 2012
“11. The doctrine of promissory estoppel or equitable estoppel is
well established in the administrative law of the country. To
put it simply, the doctrine represents a principle evolved by
equity to avoid injustice. The basis of the doctrine is that
where any party has by his word or conduct made to the other
party an unequivocal promise or representation by word or
conduct, which is intended to create legal relations or effect a
legal relationship to arise in the future, knowing as well as
intending that the representation, assurance or the promise
would be acted upon by the other party to whom it has been made
and has in fact been so acted upon by the other party, the
promise, assurance or representation should be binding on the
party making it and that party should not be permitted to go
back upon it, if it would be inequitable to allow him to do so,
having regard to the dealings, which have taken place or are
intended to take place between the parties.”
(emphasis is ours)
The above sentiment recorded in respect of the principle of estoppel was
noticed again by this Court in Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. vs. Union of
India & Ors., (2012) 11 SCC 1, wherein this Court expressed its views in
respect of the principle of estoppel as under:-
K L Rajgariha And Anr vs Canara Bank And Ors on 23 December, 2009
“289. As we have seen earlier, for invoking the principle of
promissory estoppel there has to be a promise, and on that basis
the party concerned must have acted to its prejudice.”
(emphasis is ours)
The ingredients of the doctrine of estoppel in the manner expressed above
were also projected in H.S. Basavaraj (D) by his LRs. & Anr. Vs. Canara
Bank & Ors., (2010) 12 SCC 458, as under:-
Subhas Chandra Das Mushib vs Ganga Prosad Das Mushib And Ors on 14 September, 1966
In our considered view the
relationship between Partha Mukherjee and Pratima Chowdhury would
constitute a fiduciary relationship. Even though all the above aspects of
the relationship between the parties were taken into consideration, none of
the adjudicating authorities dealt with the controversy, by taking into
account the fiduciary relationship between the parties. When parties are
in fiduciary relationship, the manner of examining the validity of a
transaction, specifically when there is no reciprocal consideration, has to
be based on parameters which are different from the ones applicable to an
ordinary case. Reference in this behalf, may be made to the decision
rendered by this Court in Subhas Chandra Das Mushib vs. Ganga Prosad Das
Mushib, AIR 1967 SC 878, wherein this Court examined the twin concepts of
“fiduciary relationship” and “undue influence” and observed as under:
Raghunath Prasad vs Sarju Prasad on 18 December, 1923
The three stages for consideration of a case of undue influence were
expounded in the case of Ragunath Prasad v. Sarju Prasad and others
(AIR 1924 PC 60) in the following words :- "In the first place the
relations between the parties to each other must be such that one is
in a position to dominate the will of the other. Once that position is
substantiated the second stage has been reached-namely, the issue
whether the contract has been induced by undue influence. Upon the
determination of this issue a third point emerges, which is that of
the onus probandi.
Krishna Mohan Kul @ Nani Charan Kul And ... vs Pratima Maity And Ors on 9 September, 2003
If the transaction appears to be unconscionable,
then the burden of proving that the contract was not induced by undue
influence is to lie upon the person who was in a position to dominate
the will of the other.”
(emphasis is ours)
The subject of fiduciary relationship was also examined by this Court in,
Krishna Mohan Kul alias Nani Charan Kul vs. Pratima Maity, (2004) 89 SCC
468, wherein it was held as under:
Anil Rishi vs Gurbaksh Singh on 2 May, 2006
Pratima Chowdhury
led evidence to show, that she was at Bombay on 11.11.1992 and 13.11.1992.
In view of the above, the letter dated 11.11.1992 and the document dated
13.11.1992, shown to have been executed at Calcutta could not be readily
accepted as genuine, for the said documents fell in the zone of suspicion,
more so, because the manuscript of the letter dated 11.11.1992 was in the
hand-writing of Partha Mukherjee. Leading to the inference, that Partha
Mukherjee was the author of the above letter. It is therefore not
incorrect to infer, that there seems to be a ring of truth, in the
assertion made by Pratima Chowdhury, that Partha Mukherjee had obtained her
signatures for executing the letter and document referred to above. We
find no justification whatsoever for Pratima Chowdhury, to have transferred
flat no. 5D to Kalpana Mukherjee, free of cost, even though she had
purchased the same for a consideration of Rs. 4 lakhs in the year 1987.
Specially so, when she had no direct intimate relationship with Kalpana
Mukherjee. By the time the flat was transferred, more than a decade had
passed by, during which period, the price of above flat, must have
escalated manifold. Numerous other factual aspects have been examined by
us above, which also clearly negate the assertions made by Kalpana
Mukherjee. The same need not be repeated here, for reasons of brevity.
Keeping in mind the above noted aspects, we are of the considered view,
that invocation of the principle of justice and equity, and the doctrine of
fairness, would in fact result in returning a finding in favour of Pratima
Chowdhury, and not Kalpana Mukherjee.