AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Report No. 108

1.3. Necessity for the examination of the doctrine.-

Apart from the fact that the above decision, holding that the doctrine can be invoked against the Government in all cases, has been expressly dissented from by another Bench of two Judges of the Supreme Court,1 there are observations in the first case which are contrary to the views expressed in earlier larger Benches of the Supreme Court and to the law in the U.K. and the U.S. from which the countries inspiration has been drawn for propounding the doctrine. The law, thus being in a state of uncertainty, the Law Commission has, suo motu, undertaken a study of the doctrine in order to define precisely its scope and ambit.

2. fit Ram Shiv Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 1980 SC 1283. (Murtaza Fazal Ali and Kailasam, ll.).



Promissory Estoppel Back




Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys