Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. T. Thomas, Suhas .C.Sen
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS
Versus
GANESH RICE MILLS AND ANOTHER, RESPONDENTS.
Civil Appeal No. 6686 of 1997 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7425 of 1993),
decided on September 26, 1997.
Promissory Estoppel - Finance Minister's Statement - The court held that the Finance Minister's statement in Parliament cannot be treated as a promise or representation to the petitioner, and the principle of promissory estoppel was wrongly applied by the High Court.
Fact of the Case:
The High Court decided that the Finance Minister's statement in Parliament was binding, and the Union was stopped from realizing the disputed cess from the appellants. The writ petitioner had acted to his prejudice based on the promise made by the Finance Minister.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the speech made by the Finance Minister in Parliament cannot be treated as a promise or representation to the writ petitioner, and no case of promissory estoppel was made out on the facts of the case. The judgment under appeal was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Finance Minister's statement in Parliament constituted a promise or representation to the writ petitioner, and whether the principle of promissory estoppel was rightly applied by the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Finance Minister's speech in Parliament cannot be considered a promise or representation, and the principle of promissory estoppel was wrongly applied by the High Court.
Final Decision: The judgment under appeal was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The only point decided by the High Court is that the Finance Ministers statement on the floor of the House must be held to be binding and the Union was stopped from realising the disputed cess from the appellants. It has been stated that the writ petitioner had acted to his prejudice on the basis of the promise made by the Finance Minister. We are of the view that speech made in Parliament by the Finance Minister cannot be treated as a promise or representation made to the writ petitioner and the principle of promissory estoppel was wrongly applied by the High Court. No case of promissory estoppel has been made out on the facts of this case.
3. In that view of the matter, the judgment under appeal is set aside. The appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
