| Contents |
| Chapter 1 |
Introduction-Consideration & Promissory Estoppel |
| 1.1 |
Consideration |
| 2. |
Promissory Estoppel |
| 3. |
Necessity for the examination of the doctrine |
| Chapter 2 |
Evolution of The Doctrine in India |
| 2.1. |
Necessity for a historic retrospect |
| 2. |
An illustrative case |
| 3,4,5. |
Ahmed Yar Khan v. Secretary of State |
| 6. |
Union of India v. Anglo-Afghan Agencies |
| 7. |
Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. v. Ulhasnagar Municipality |
| 8. |
Narinder Chand v. Union territory, H.P |
| 9,10. |
Turner Morrison & Co. v. Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd |
| 11. |
State of Kerala v. Gwalior Rayons |
| 12. |
Asst. Custodian v. H.K. Agarwala |
| 13. |
N. Rarmanatha v. State of Kerala |
| 14. |
Malhotra & Sons v. Union of India |
| 15. |
Excise Commission v. Ram Kumar |
| 16. |
Bihar E.G.F. Coop. Society v. Sipahi Singh |
| 17. |
M.P. Sugar Mills v. State of U.P |
|
The Law Commission of India recommended as follows |
|
The exception recommended was |
|
Spencer-dower and Turner10 have examined these two views critically and stated |
| 18. |
Jit Ram v. State of Haryana |
| Chapter 3 |
The Law in The United Kingdom and The United States |
| 3.1. |
United Kingdom |
| 2. |
United States |
| Chapter 4 |
The Problems |
| 4.1. |
Problems |
| 2. |
Views of the Law Commission |
| Chapter 5 |
Comments Received |
| 5.1,2. |
Comments Received |
| Chapter 6 |
Recommendations |
| 6.1. |
Recommendations of the Law Commission |
| 2. |
Suggested section 25A, Contract Act Promissory estoppel-25A |
