Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (5) TMI 1531

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... entire amount due under the Assessment order on 18/12/2003. The petitioner initiated proceedings for reconveyance of the land. The District Collector refused to the request of the petitioner and directed the petitioner to remit the current market value of the land as contemplated in Government Order No. (MS No. 196/96 RD 22/91. The petitioner, aggrieved by the direction of the District Collector approached this Court in WP (C) No. 34407/2003. This Court directed the petitioner to remit 50%. The petitioner withdrew the writ petition with liberty. The issue in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled for re-conveyance of the land without paying the market value of the land. The Government order regarding the re-conveyance of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... red by this Court is the legal effect is of the payment effected by the debtor. 4. The restitutional claim would arise against the public authorities or State in numerous circumstances. One of such circumstances is on equitable ground. To allow any claim based on equitable ground, the Court has to look around the conduct of the parties in relation to the transaction. Therefore, the foremost point to consider is the reason for the Government to allow the debtor to discharge his liability. 5. When a sale would extinguish the liability of the debtor, any payment thereafter made towards the discharge of the liability and accepted by the creditor, certainly has to be treated as a separate transaction to determine the rights and liabilities of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he basis of a cause of action." 7. Section 2(h) of the Indian Contract Act defines a contract as an agreement enforceable by law. Under Section 2(e) every promise and every set of promises, forming the consideration for each other, is an agreement. Section 2(d) defines consideration as follows: "When, at the desire of the promisor, the promise or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain from doing, something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise." 8. Therefore, the contract is legally valid if a promise is made and consideration is paid pursuant to the promise. 9. Some of the text books define promissory estoppel as follows: .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... overnment directing the petitioner to make payment. However, it is not necessary that there should be a representation on the part of the Government or promise to bind the Government to apply principles related to estoppel. As narrated as above, Principle of estoppel is a part of equity. The Court can resort to apply the estoppel to do substantial justice between the parties. 11. The doctrine of proprietary estoppel reinforces the equitable consideration as above. The Proprietary estoppel is defined as follows: "It has recently become fashionable to use the term 'proprietary estoppel" to signify the doctrine which we have been discussing above under the name of estoppel by encouragement or acquiescence, and so long as it is understoo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the amount. This was accepted without any demur. The sale was concluded in the year 1985. Therefore, the petitioner's payment cannot be considered as the payment effected in the light of the Government order referred as above. There is no case that the petitioner has committed any fraud on the officials of the Government. No such case was espoused in the counter. Further, the official respondents also have no case that the petitioner made the payment by misrepresentation. It is to be noted that nobody has a case that remittance was under mistake or under compulsion. In such scenario, the only conclusion is possible is that the petitioner made the payment and he was encouraged to make such payment by the Government. The stand in the cou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates