Case: Tata Iron And Steel Co.Ltd Vs. Union Of India

it cannot complain. His complaint is that when afterwards the other party makes a diffenet state of affaris, the basisof an ascertian of right against him then, if it is allowed, his own original change of position will operate as a detriment (vide Grundts: High Court of Austriala (supra)). 21. Phipson on Evidence (Fourteenth Edn.) has the followng to state as regards estoppels by conduct. "Estoppels by conduct, or, as they are still sometiems called, estoppels by matter in pais, were anciently acts of notoriety not less solemn and formal than the execution of a deed, such as livery of seisin, entry, accepteance of an estate and the like, and whether a party had or had not concurred in an act of this sort was deemed a matter which there could be no difficulty in ascertainging, and then the legal consequences followed. Lyon v. Reed, 1844(13) M&W. 285, 309. The doctrine has, however, in modern tiems, been extended so as to embrace practically any act or stateemnt by a party which it would be unconscionable to permit which it would be unconscionable to permit him to deny. The rule has been auhtoritatively stated as follows : "Where one by his words of conduct willfully causes another to believe the existence of a certian state of things and induces him to act on that beleif so as to alter his own previous position, the former is concluded from averring against the latter a differnet state of things as existing at the same time." Pickard v. Sears, 1837(6) A.&E. 469, 474 And whatever a mans real intention my be, he is deemed to act willfully "if he so conducts himself that a reasonable man would take the representation to be true and beleive that it was meant that he should act upon it. Freeman v. Cooke, 1848(2) Exch. 654, 663.Where the conduct is negligent or consits wholly of omission, there must be a duty to the person misled. Mercantile Bank v. Central Bank, 1938 AC 287, 304 and National Westminster Bank v. Barclays Bank International, 1975 Q.B. 654. This principle sits oddly with the rest of the law of estoppel, but it appears to have been reaffirmed, at least by implication, by the House of Lords comparately recently. Moorgate Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. Twitchings, (1977) AC 890 (H.L.). The explanation is no doubt that this aspect of estoppel is properly to be considered a part of the law relating to negligent representations rather than estoppel properly so-called. If two people with the same source of information assert the same truth or agree to assert the same falsehoold at the same time, neither can be estopped as against the other from asserting differently at another time. Square v. Square, 1935 p. 120". 22. A bare perusal of the same would go to show that the issue of an estoppel by conduct can only be said to be available in the event of there being a precise and unambiguous representation and on that score a further question arises as to whether there was any unequivocal assurance prompting the assured to alter his position or status. The contextual facts however, depict otherwise. Annexure 2 to the application form for benefit of price protection contains and undertaking to the following effect :- "We hereby undertake to refund to EEPC Rs. ---- the amount paid to us in full or part thereof against out application for price protection. In terms of our application dated against exports made during. In case any particular declaration/certificate furnished by us against our above referred to claims are found to be incorrect or any excess payment is determine to have been made due to oversight/wrong calculations etc. at any time. We also undertake to refund the amount within 10 days of receipt of the notice asking for the refund, failing which the amount erroneously paid or paid in excess shall be recovered from or adjusted against any other claim for export benefits by EEPC or by the licensing authorities at CCI & C." and it is on this score it may be noted that in the event of there being a specific undertaking to refund for any amount erroneously paid or paid in excess (emphasis supplied), question of there being any estoppel in our view would not arise. In this context correspondence exchanged between the parties are rather significant. In particular letter dated 30th November, 1990 from the Assistant Development Commissioner fro Iron & Steel and the reply thereto dated March 8, 1991 which unmistakably record the factum of non-payment of JPC price. Opinion of the Court :23. The contextual facts therefore is no unambiguous language depict that the four JPC price elements have not been paid by the appellant herein. Further factual score depicts recording of an undertaking to reply in the event of excess payments and on the wake of the findings as noticed hereinbefore, it would neither be fair nor reasonable or in consonance with the concept of justice, equity and good conscience directing entitlement of the appellant as is being claimed. Doctrine of fairness and the duty to act fairly is a doctrine developed in the administrative law filed to ensure the rule of law and to prevent failure of justice. It is a principle of good conscience and equity since the law courts are to act fairly and reasonably in accordance with the law. The correspondence unmistakably divulge an obligation to pay certain compensation in the event there is a payment of certain levy by the appellant herein : The appellant admittedly has not made the payment : Doctrine of unreasonabless is opposed to doctrine of fairness and reasonableness will have its play, if allowed. The happening of an event has not aken place, can it be said respective of such an event reimbursement is to be allowed ? The answer, however, cannot but in the negative.d 24. In that view of the matter, we record our concurrent with the judgment of the Calcutta High Court. 25.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]23. The contextual facts therefore is no unambiguous language depict that the four JPC price elements have not been paid by the appellant herein. Further factual score depicts recording of an undertaking to reply in the event of excess payments and on the wake of the findings as noticed hereinbefore, it would neither be fair nor reasonable or in consonance with the concept of justice, equity and good conscience directing entitlement of the appellant as is being claimed. Doctrine of fairness and the duty to act fairly is a doctrine developed in the administrative law filed to ensure the rule of law and to prevent failure of justice. It is a principle of good conscience and equity since the law courts are to act fairly and reasonably in accordance with the law. The correspondence unmistakably divulge an obligation to pay certain compensation in the event there is a payment of certain levy by the appellant herein : The appellant admittedly has not made the payment : Doctrine of unreasonabless is opposed to doctrine of fairness and reasonableness will have its play, if allowed. The happening of an event has not aken place, can it be said respective of such an event reimbursement is to be allowed ? The answer, however, cannot but in the negative.