Union of India and Others Vs. Ganesh Rice Mills and Another
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 6686 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7425 of 1993).
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7425 of 1993).
Petitioner: Union of India and Others
Respondent: Ganesh Rice Mills and Another
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 6686 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7425 of 1993).
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7425 of 1993).
Judges: S.C. SEN & K.T. THOMAS, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 26, 1997
Head Note:
ESTOPPLE
Evidence Act, 1872
Sections 115, 116 – Promissory Estoppel – Speech made by Finance Minister on the floor of the House. Held, cannot be treated to be a promise or representation made to writ-petitioner. Principle of promissory estoppel was wrongly applied by High Court. Appeal allowed. (Para 2)
Evidence Act, 1872
Sections 115, 116 – Promissory Estoppel – Speech made by Finance Minister on the floor of the House. Held, cannot be treated to be a promise or representation made to writ-petitioner. Principle of promissory estoppel was wrongly applied by High Court. Appeal allowed. (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The only point decided by the High Court is that the Finance Minister’s 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 peti-tioner 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.
1. Leave granted.
2. The only point decided by the High Court is that the Finance Minister’s 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 peti-tioner 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.
