This document discusses the evolution of the doctrine of promissory estoppel through an analysis of key cases. It begins by defining promissory estoppel and outlining its key elements. It then examines two early English cases - Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877) and Central London Property Trust Ltd. v High Trees House Ltd (1947) - that helped develop the doctrine. The document also reviews two important Indian cases - Union of India vs Anglo (Indian) Afghan Agencies and Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills vs State of Uttar Pradesh - where promissory estoppel was applied against the government. It concludes that the doctrine ensures fairness and justice by holding parties accountable to their clear promises and representations.

1. Evolution of the Doctrine of
Promissory Estoppel
Submitted to:
Mr. Ashok Kumar
Assistant Professor (ABVSLS, CSJMU Kanpur)
Submitted by:
Ashutosh Kumar Pandey
LL.M.in Constitutional andAdministrative law (4th
Semester)

2. “
”
Where, by words or conduct, a person makes an
unambiguous representation as to his future conduct,
intending the representation to be relied on and to
affect the legal relations between the parties and the
representee alters his position in reliance on it, the
representor will not be allowed to act inconsistently
with the representation if by doing so,the respresentee
would be prejudiced.
Definition of Promissory
Estoppel

3. Arepresentation as to future conduct
intending to affect legal relation
The representation must have been
relied upon
It must be inequitable for the
promisor to go back
The promisor’s right is not
extinguished
Acts as a shield, not a defence

4. When can a party be estopped?
• Where a clear and unequivocal promise or
representation was made which was intended to affect
the legal relations between the parties,
• When the promise or representation has been relied
upon by the promisee or representee (possibly to his
detriment) and
• When it would be inequitable to allow the promisor or
representor to go back on his promise or representation

5. 1.Hughes v
Metropolitan
Railway Co (1877)
2A.C. 439
Cases realting to the
Evolution of the Doctrine
of Promissory Estoppel :-

6. Hughes vMetropolitan Railway Co
(1877)
• Thomas Hughes owned property leased to the
Metropolitan Railway Company
• Under the lease, Hughes was entitled to compel the
tenant to repair the building within six months of
notice and he gave so in 1874.
• The Railway responded by inquiring whether the
landlord wished to purchase their interest in the
premises for 3000 pounds.

7. Hughes vMetropolitan Railway Co
(1877)
• The landlord entered into negotiations for the purchase
of the lease but the negotiations.
• Once the six months had elapsed the landlord sued the
tenant for breach of contract and tried to evict the
company.
• The House of Lords held that the tenant was entitled to
equitable relief against forfeiture of the lease on the
ground that the running of the six-month period was
suspended during negotiation.

8. 2.Central London
Property Trust
Ltd. v. High Trees
House (1947) K.B.
130

9. Central London Property Trust Ltd.v
High TreesHouseLtd (1947)
• Plaintiffs let a block of flats in London to the defendants on
a 99-year lease at an annual rent of 2500 pounds.
• In 1940, as a result of outbreak of war, the defendants were
unable to let many of the flats.
• Plaintiffs therefore agreed to reduce the rent to 1250 pounds.
• This promise to accept a reduced rent was unsupported by
consideration.

10. Central London Property Trust Ltd. v
High TreesHouseLtd (1947)
• At the end of the war, the property market returned
to normal and the flats were fully let.
• The claimants demanded that the defendants should
resume payment of entire rent from 1945.
• Lord Denning J., held in 1947 that, the Central
London Property were entitled to demand the
entire rent from the date when the flats became
fully let in 1945.

11. Ingredients of the Application of this Doctrine :-
1- There is a representation or promise in
regard to something to be done in the
future.
2-That the representation or promise was
intended to affect the legal relationship
of the parties and to have been acted
upon accordingly.
3- The other party must have acted upon
the promise and changed his position.

12. Cases relating to Evolution of Promissory
Estoppel in India
1. Union of India vs Anglo (Indian) Afghan Agencies
•The Central Government declared under Imports Control Order to grant
import license for the raw material upto 100% f.o.b. of the value of the
goods exported .
•Petitioner got entitlement certificate of much less value as against f.o.b.
value of the goods exported.
•The government’s plea was that it was not bound by its declaration because
there was no contract in the form prescribed by Article 299(1) of the
Constitution of India.
•The Court held that the government was not liable in contract but it was
liable in equity and the exporter could enforce the compliance of the promise
made by the government.

13. 2- Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills vs State of Uttar Pradesh
•The Chief Secretary of the Government gave a categorical assurance that
total exemption from sales tax would be given for three years to all new
industrial units in order to establish themselves firmly.
•Acting on this assurance, the appellant sugar mills set up a hydrogenation
plant by raising a huge loan.
•Subsequently, the Government changed its policy and announced that
sales tax exemption will be given at varying rates over three years and few
days later Government said that no exemption in sales tax would be given.
•The appellant contended that they set up the plant and raised huge loans
only due to the assurance given by the Government.
•The Supreme Court held that the Government was bound by its promise
and was liable to exempt the appellants from sales tax for a period of three
years commencing from the date of production.

14. Conclusion:-
•The Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel has its
foundation in fair dealing.
•It often gives triumph to right and justice where
nothing else in our jurisprudence can by its
operation secure those ends.
•This Doctrine is a conservator and society
cannot go on efficiently without its recognition
and application in the administration of justice.

15. Thank You