Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel:
The Supreme Court recently observed that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to claim a benefit under a government policy which was never aimed to benefit a specific class of industrial unit.
- It is a legal doctrine that states that if someone reasonably relies on a promise and acts (or fails to act) in a way that causes them some harm because of that promise, the promise can be enforced.
- Promissory estoppel prevents the promisor from arguing against the enforcement of a promise.
- The doctrine applies when the promisor has made a promise to the promisee.
- The promisee must have relied on the promise and suffered a detriment due to the non-performance of the promise.
- The doctrine prevents the promisor or enterprise from going back on its word or promise.
- The doctrine enables the injured party or the promisee to recover on a promise.
- The doctrine seeks to protect the rights of a promisee or aggrieved party against the promisor.
- Thus, Promissory estoppel requirements include a clear promise (whether oral or in writing), reliance on that promise by the promisee, a detriment suffered, and a need to avoid injustice.
- The doctrine varies from country to country. Cases of promissory estoppel can result in either reliance or expectation damages, depending on the jurisdiction and circumstances.
- In a 1981 decision in Chhaganlal Keshavalal Mehta v. Patel Narandas Haribhai, the SC lists a checklist for when the doctrine can be applied.
- First, there must be a clear and unambiguous promise.
- Second, the plaintiff must have acted relying reasonably on that promise.
- Third, the plaintiff must have suffered a loss.
