Doctrine of Estoppel
The doctrine of estoppel is a legal principle that prevents a person from denying or contradicting a statement or action that has been relied upon by another person to their detriment. The principle of estoppel is based on the idea that it is unfair for a person to be able to go back on their word or change their position in a way that causes harm to another person who has relied on their statement or action.
The doctrine of estoppel is a legal principle that prevents a person from denying or contradicting a statement or action that has been relied upon by another person to their detriment. The principle of estoppel is based on the idea that it is unfair for a person to be able to go back on their word or change their position in a way that causes harm to another person who has relied on their statement or action.
The doctrine of estoppel has several principles, including:
- A person cannot deny or contradict a statement or action that has been made or taken in the past, if another person has relied on that statement or action to their detriment.
- A person cannot take a position that is inconsistent with a position that they have previously taken, if another person has relied on their previous position to their detriment.
- A person cannot assert a right or claim that is inconsistent with a position that they have previously taken, if another person has relied on their previous position to their detriment.
- In order for the doctrine of estoppel to apply, it must be shown that the person against whom the doctrine is being applied made a representation or took a particular action, and that the other person relied on that representation or action to their detriment.
- The doctrine of estoppel can only be applied if the person against whom it is being applied had knowledge of the facts and intended to induce the other person to rely on their representation or action.
The doctrine of estoppel is recognized in Indian contract law and is often applied in cases involving disputes over the enforceability of contracts. The principle of estoppel is based on the idea that it is unfair for a person to be able to go back on their word or change their position in a way that causes harm to another person who has relied on their statement or action.
In the context of contract law, the doctrine of estoppel can be applied to prevent a party from denying or contradicting a representation or promise that they made during the formation of a contract, if the other party relied on that representation or promise to their detriment. For example, if one party to a contract makes a representation about the quality of goods or services being provided, and the other party relies on that representation in entering into the contract, the doctrine of estoppel may be applied to prevent the first party from later denying or contradicting the representation.
The doctrine of estoppel is codified in several provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, including Section 115 (which deals with estoppel by conduct), Section 116 (which deals with estoppel by representation), and Section 117 (which deals with estoppel by neglect). These provisions set out the circumstances in which the doctrine of estoppel may be applied in contract disputes and the effects of estoppel on the enforceability of contracts.
Landmark Judgements
There have been several landmark judgments in India that have dealt with the doctrine of estoppel and its application in contract law. Some notable examples include:
Ramesh Chandra v. Gyan Prakash (1963): In this case, the Supreme Court of India applied the doctrine of estoppel to hold that a person who had previously made a representation or promise could not later deny or contradict that representation or promise in order to avoid their obligations under a contract.
State of Bihar v. Maharaja Shree Hans Kishore (1971): In this case, the Supreme Court applied the doctrine of estoppel to hold that a person who had received a benefit under a contract could not later deny their obligation to pay for that benefit.
Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (1996): In this case, the Supreme Court applied the doctrine of estoppel to hold that a person who had accepted a benefit under a contract could not later deny their obligation to pay for that benefit.
N.K. Raghavan v. State of Kerala (2002): In this case, the Supreme Court applied the doctrine of estoppel to hold that a person who had received a benefit under a contract could not later deny their obligation to pay for that benefit.
M/s. Rites Limited v. Ircon International Limited (2006): In this case, the Supreme Court applied the doctrine of estoppel to hold that a person who had made a representation or promise during the formation of a contract could not later deny or contradict that representation or promise in order to avoid their obligations under the contract.
