{"id":60781,"date":"2016-08-09T15:44:55","date_gmt":"2016-08-09T10:14:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=60781"},"modified":"2016-08-09T15:44:55","modified_gmt":"2016-08-09T10:14:55","slug":"2016-scc-vol-6-july-28-2016-part-5","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/08\/09\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-28-2016-part-5\/","title":{"rendered":"2016 SCC Vol. 6 July 28, 2016 Part 5"},"content":{"rendered":"

Administrative Law \u2014 Promissory Estoppel \u2014 Applicability \u2014 Nature and Scope \u2014 Invocation of the Doctrine:<\/strong> It is not the law that there can be no promissory estoppel against the Government in exercise of its sovereign, governmental, public or executive powers. That would be in complete contradiction of decisions of Supreme Court. It is true that taxation is a sovereign or governmental function, but no distinction can be made between exercise of a sovereign or governmental function and a trading or business activity of Government, so far as doctrine of promissory estoppel is concerned. [Manuelsons Hotels (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2016) 6 SCC 766<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 \u2014 S. 2(2) and Or. 14 \u2014 Decree \u2014 What amounts to:<\/strong> In terms of S. 2(2), it is only where court adjudicating a case, conclusively determines rights of parties with regard to any one or more or all matters in controversy, that it qualifies as \u201cdecree\u201d. [Rishabh Chand Jain v. Ginesh Chandra Jain, (2016) 6 SCC 675<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 \u2014 S. 9, Or. 2 Rr. 3, 4 & 7 and Or. 7 Rr. 3, 7 & 8: <\/strong>Claim in respect of subject-matter if not covered in suit, not maintainable. Fresh suit has to be filed in respect such subject-matter, if maintainable. [Ram Dutt v. Dev Dutt, (2016) 6 SCC 718<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 \u2014 S. 197(1) \u2014 Previous sanction to prosecute public servant under \u2014 When required:<\/strong> Protection under S. 197 is available only when alleged act done by public servant is reasonably connected with discharge of his official duty and is not merely a cloak for doing objectionable act. If in doing his official duty, he acted in excess of his duty, but there is a reasonable connection between act and performance of official duty, excess will not be a sufficient ground to deprive public servant of protection. Question is not as to nature of offence such as whether alleged offence contained element necessarily dependent upon offender being a public servant, but whether it was committed by a public servant acting or purporting to act as such in discharge of his official capacity. Before S. 197 can be invoked, it must be shown, that official concerned was accused of offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duties. It is not the duty which requires examination so much as the act, because official act can be performed both in discharge of official duty as well as in dereliction of it. The act must fall within the scope and range of official duties of public servant concerned. There cannot be any universal rule to determine whether there is a reasonable connection between act done and official duty, nor is it possible to lay down any such rule. One safe and sure test in such regard, would be to consider if omission or neglect on part of public servant to commit the act complained of could have made him answerable for a charge of dereliction of his official duty. This makes it clear, that concept of S. 197 does not get immediately attracted on institution of complaint case. [Amal Kumar Jha v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2016) 6 SCC 734<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 \u2014 Ss. 193, 190, 209 and 397 to 401 \u2014 Power of Sessions Court to take cognizance under S. 193 CrPC as a court of original jurisdiction \u2014 When available:<\/strong> When Magistrate has played an active role <\/em>in taking\/refusing cognizance before committing case under S. 209 CrPC, i.e. of active committal, when Magistrate has already exercised cognizance power, Sessions Court cannot take cognizance for a second time \u201cas a court of original jurisdiction\u201d under S. 193 CrPC, as cognizance of an offence can only be taken once. It can only exercise its revisional jurisdiction. In another situation when Magistrate has played a passive role <\/em>in committing case under S. 209 CrPC, i.e. passive committal, since Magistrate has not exercised cognizance power, Sessions Court is free to exercise the same for the first time \u201cas a court of original jurisdiction\u201d under S. 193 CrPC. [Balveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 6 SCC 680<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Criminal Trial \u2014 Practice and Procedure \u2014 Locus standi\/standing: <\/strong>Term \u201clocus standi<\/em>\u201d is Latin term, general meaning of which is \u201cplace of standing\u201d. Concise Oxford English Dictionary<\/em>, defines \u201clocus standi\u201d as the right or capacity to bring an action or to appear in a court. Traditional view of \u201clocus standi\u201d has been, that person who is aggrieved or affected alone has the standing before court i.e. to say he only has a right to move court for seeking justice. Later, Supreme Court, with justice-oriented approach, has relaxed the strict rule with regard to \u201clocus standi\u201d, allowing any person from society not related to cause of action to approach the court, bona fide seeking justice for those who could not themselves approach the court. Regarding criminal trial, which is conducted, largely, by following procedure laid down in CrPC, since offence is considered to be a wrong committed against society, prosecution against accused person is launched by State. It is duty of State to get culprit booked for offence committed by him. Focal point here is that if State fails in aforesaid regard, then, party having bona fide connection with cause of action, who is aggrieved by order of court, cannot be left at mercy of State and without any option to approach the court for seeking justice. [Amanullah v. State of Bihar, (2016) 6 SCC 699<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (DVAT) (3 of 2005) \u2014 Ss. 7(a) and (c) \u2014 Movement of goods by way of imports or by way of inter-State trade: <\/strong>As DMRC had executed a contract under which respondent had to provide transformers, switchgears, high voltage cables, SCADA system and also complete electrical solution, including control room for operation of metro trains on the section concerned and the terms of contract envisaged inter-State movement of goods, held, movement of goods by way of imports or by way of inter-State trade was in pursuance of conditions and\/or as an incident of contract between assessee and DMRC. Further, goods were of specific quality and description for being used in works contract awarded on turnkey basis to assessee and there was no possibility of such goods being diverted by assessee for any other purpose. In this case, order of High Court holding that transactions constituted inter-State trade and sale or purchase in course of import and same were covered by S. 3(a) and S. 5(2) respectively of CST Act and, therefore, exempt from taxation under Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004, upheld. [CVAT v. ABB Ltd., (2016) 6 SCC 791<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Income Tax Act, 1961 \u2014 Ss. 80-IB and 80-IC \u2014 Deductions:<\/strong> Assessee contended that all the subsidies given by the Government, went towards cost of manufacture or sale of the products; such subsidies being towards costs which were actually incurred by it and thereafter reimbursed by the State. Revenue contended that any amount received by way of subsidy was an amount whose source was the Government and not the business of the assessee and that the respondent\/assessee did not qualify for deductions under Ss. 80-IB and 80-IC of the Act. It was held that all the four subsidies were revenue receipts which were reimbursed to the assessee for elements of cost relating to manufacture or sale of their products, and there was a direct nexus between profits and gains of the industrial undertaking or business, and reimbursement of such subsidies. Further, so long as profits and gains emanated directly from the business itself, the fact that the immediate source of the subsidies was the Government made no difference. Hence, assessee entitled to deduction of the same. [CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd., (2016) 6 SCC 747<\/a>]<\/p>\n

\n

Limitation Act, 1963 \u2014 Arts. 60, 109, 110 & 113 and S. 7: <\/strong>Sale of Hindu ancestral property by widow after death of her husband original owner, is in contravention of S. 8 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, hence voidable. Art. 60 is applicable to suit by quondam minor to set aside alienation of his property by his guardian and limitation period of three years will start from date of minor attaining majority. Even if on date of filing of suit, remaining plaintiffs were major, but none of them was in capacity of manager of the family so as to be capable of giving discharge without concurrence of the minor and as such by virtue of S. 7 of Limitation Act, 1963, time of 3 yrs will run against all the plaintiffs only on minor attaining majority. [Narayan v. Babasaheb, (2016) 6 SCC 725<\/a>]<\/p>\n

\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Administrative Law \u2014 Promissory Estoppel \u2014 Applicability \u2014 Nature and Scope \u2014 Invocation of the Doctrine: It is not the law that <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":102451,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-60781","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casesreported","category-supremecourtcases"],"yoast_head":"\n2016 SCC Vol. 6 July 28, 2016 Part 5 | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/08\/09\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-28-2016-part-5\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"2016 SCC Vol. 6 July 28, 2016 Part 5\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Administrative Law \u2014 Promissory Estoppel \u2014 Applicability \u2014 Nature and Scope \u2014 Invocation of the Doctrine: It is not the law that\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/08\/09\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-28-2016-part-5\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2016-08-09T10:14:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/08\/09\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-28-2016-part-5\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/08\/09\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-28-2016-part-5\/\",\"name\":\"2016 SCC Vol. 6 July 28, 2016 Part 5 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/08\/09\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-28-2016-part-5\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/08\/09\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-28-2016-part-5\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-08-09T10:14:55+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/08\/09\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-28-2016-part-5\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/08\/09\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-28-2016-part-5\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/08\/09\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-28-2016-part-5\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/08\/09\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-28-2016-part-5\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"2016 SCC Vol. 6 July 28, 2016 Part 5\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\",\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sucheta\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"2016 SCC Vol. 6 July 28, 2016 Part 5 | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/08\/09\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-28-2016-part-5\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"2016 SCC Vol. 6 July 28, 2016 Part 5","og_description":"Administrative Law \u2014 Promissory Estoppel \u2014 Applicability \u2014 Nature and Scope \u2014 Invocation of the Doctrine: It is not the law that","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/08\/09\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-28-2016-part-5\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2016-08-09T10:14:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sucheta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sucheta","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/08\/09\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-28-2016-part-5\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/08\/09\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-28-2016-part-5\/","name":"2016 SCC Vol. 6 July 28, 2016 Part 5 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/08\/09\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-28-2016-part-5\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/08\/09\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-28-2016-part-5\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","datePublished":"2016-08-09T10:14:55+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/08\/09\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-28-2016-part-5\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/08\/09\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-28-2016-part-5\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/08\/09\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-28-2016-part-5\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/08\/09\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-28-2016-part-5\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"2016 SCC Vol. 6 July 28, 2016 Part 5"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa","name":"Sucheta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sucheta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":240032,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/02\/legitimate-expectations-evolution-and-application-of-the-doctrine-in-india-and-how-is-it-different-from-promissory-estoppel-as-explained-by-supreme-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":60781,"position":0},"title":"Legitimate expectations: Evolution and application of the doctrine in India and how is it different from promissory estoppel as explained by Supreme Court","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"December 2, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: In the case where the Jharkhand Government had failed to give effect to the Industrial Policy and subsequent Notification that promised 50% rebate to Industrial Units on electricity duty, the Dr. DY Chandrachud* and Indu Malhotra, JJ took the opportunity to explain the evolution and application of the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/sc-07-2.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/sc-07-2.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/sc-07-2.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/sc-07-2.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/sc-07-2.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":284543,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/21\/difference-between-promissory-estoppel-and-legitimate-explanation-explainer\/","url_meta":{"origin":60781,"position":1},"title":"Difference between Promissory Estoppel and Legitimate Expectation: Explainer","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 21, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"by Arpit Sarangi\u2020","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-463.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-463.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-463.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-463.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":288750,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/07\/estoppel-not-granted-to-student-having-knowledge-of-failure-in-exam-orissa-hc-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":60781,"position":2},"title":"Promissory estoppel inapplicable in a situation where a student has knowledge about failure in examination: Orissa HC holds \u2018Charan Panda case\u2019 to be bad in law","author":"Editor","date":"April 7, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Orissa High Court said that it is no doubt true that the Courts have, more often than not, leaned in favour of the students, but as the things stand, a line must be drawn between cases where there have been a bona fide error and cases where the circumstances are\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Orissa High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-508.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-508.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-508.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-508.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":47631,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/05\/19\/buildings-constructed-from-the-year-1990-1993-entitled-to-tax-exemption-as-per-s-3a-of-the-kerala-buildings-act-1993\/","url_meta":{"origin":60781,"position":3},"title":"Buildings constructed from the year 1990-1993 entitled to tax exemption as per S. 3A of the Kerala Buildings Act, 1993","author":"Sucheta","date":"May 19, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: Deciding on the issue that whether the State Government may deny the tax exemption which was promised earlier, the bench comprising of Dr. A.K Sikri and R. F. Nariman, JJ., was of the view that the non-exercise of the power to give exemption in certain taxes is in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":251621,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/07\/23\/promise-by-chief-minister-in-press-conference-enforceable\/","url_meta":{"origin":60781,"position":4},"title":"Whether a Chief Minister’s promise to its citizens is enforceable? Succinct report in light of Delhi CM’s ‘Promise’ | Highlight on Doctrines of Promissory Estoppel & Legitimate Expectations","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 23, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: Prathiba M. Singh, J., while quoting that \u2018Promises are meant to be broken\u2019 stated that the law has evolved the doctrines of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel to ensure that promises made by the Government, its officials and other authorities are not broken and are, in fact,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":204977,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/12\/promissory-estoppel-not-applicable-where-documents-failed-to-show-governments-assurance-to-construct-toilets\/","url_meta":{"origin":60781,"position":5},"title":"Promissory estoppel not applicable where documents failed to show government\u2019s assurance to construct toilets","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 12, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Sikkim High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. addressed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Facts of the case were that the petitioners had a shop on the first floor of \u201cnon-veg\u201d building for the purpose of selling fish, dressed chicken and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60781","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=60781"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60781\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/102451"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60781"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60781"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60781"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}