HIGH COURT OF DELHI invites online applications from eligible candidates for filling up 16 vacancies (15 existing & 01 anticipated) by way of direct recruitment in Delhi Higher Judicial Service by holding the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination.
Stages
Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination will be held in three successive stages:-
Delhi Higher Judicial Service Preliminary Examination (Objective type with 25% negative marking) for selection of candidates for the Mains Examination (Written); and
Delhi Higher Judicial Service Mains Examination (Written) for selection of candidates for calling for Viva-Voce.
Viva-Voce.
Eligibility
The qualifications for direct recruits shall be as follows:-
must be a citizen of India.
must have been continuously practising as an Advocate for not less than seven years as of the last date of receipt of applications, i.e., 29.07.2023.
must have attained the age of 35 years and have not attained the age of 45 years on the 1st day of January of the year in which the applications for appointment are invited, i.e., on 01.01.2023.
Important Dates
Date and Time of commencement for creation of New Log In and filling Online Application Form
14th July 2023
Last Date and Time for filling Online Application Form and/or making payment through Debit Card/Credit Card/Internet Banking/UPI
29th July 2023
Delhi Higher Judicial Service Preliminary Examination
20th August 2023 (11 AM to 1 PM)
Fees
General Category – Rs.2000/-
Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe / Person with Disabilities (identified disabilities) – Rs.500/-
The candidates should pay through Debit Card//Credit Card/Internet Banking/UPI.
Application Process
The candidates shall submit their applications online only in the prescribed format through the official website of the High Court of Delhi i.e. www.delhihighcourt.nic.in.
The candidates can take a printout of the application form and keep it for future reference. They should not send the printout of the online application form to the High Court of Delhi.
Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.
The Office is headed by Mr.C.Arulvadivel @ Sekar, Senior Advocate, Hon’ble High Court of Madras, The Senior Counsel is also the Special Public Prosecutor for Customs and The Narcotics Control Bureau. The Associates is the counsel for the NHAI, The Tamil University, Thanjavur and Gandhigram University.
C.Arulvadivel Associates is looking for a Junior Associate to join the office in Madurai, Tamil Nadu and is accepting applications for the same.
Location
The office is located in K.K. Nagar, Madurai, Tamil Nade
Job Summary
Their Office is seeking a Highly motivated Junior associate with minimum 2 years of experience in representing the High Court or Supreme Court.
Key Responsibilities
Managing a Caseload of Clients
Drafting
Representing before the High Court
Contribute to the Growth
Support of the Firm.
Qualification
LL.B. or LL.M. in any reputed College.
Got Enrolled in the Bar Council of India.
Minimum of 2 Years of experience in Practice in the High Court.
Exceptional Skill in Communication (Both English and Tamil), drafting and research.
Application Process
Send your CV through Email: arulvadivelassociates@gmail.com
Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.
Even after 75 years of Independence India is struggling or lacking to resolve the expanding problem of corruption in the nation. Corruption is the practice that is prevailing in the roots of the nation to get work done through backdoors or an illegal or illicit way and at the same time it is acting as a backfire step in the evolution or growth of the nation. The practice of corruption is seen as a hindrance and as a major barrier to success for developing countries like India. As India is a country with a vast and growing population is a tough and challenging problem to regulate or control the activity which is against the law. India is not only the country facing the problem of corruption every growing or evolving nation in the present world faces complications regarding corruption practices prevailing in the nation. This problem was significantly neglected or ignored by the government at the starting point as they felt that these practices will not affect the nation in a threatening way but after reviewing and scrutinizing the corruption practices the government felt there should be policies, acts, regulations structured or designed in such a way so that it can curb the problem of corruption. So the government decided to frame or structure policies, acts, statutes, and norms that can considerably regulate this growing constraint.
UNDERSTANDING THE CONCEPT OF CORRUPTION
“Corruption” is described as “the unlawful use of governmental authority for private gain.” This abuse of power weakens a democracy by undermining trust between two or more parties. Additionally, corruption may exacerbate poverty and inequality while impeding a country’s ability to prosper economically. Understanding how corruption operates is crucial to exposing it and holding the dishonest accountable for establishing a corrupt system. The growth of the nation is badly impacted by its aftermath and acts as a hindrance toward the systematic and continuous progress of the nation.
HISTORY OF CORRUPTION IN INDIA
We are natives of Gandhi’s country, for whom the essential tenets of life were honesty and nonviolence. I will use the 2000-year-old Vedic proverb “Satyam vadhadharmam charah” as an example. The motto of our country is Satyameva Jayate. Therefore, we all support honesty and truth, at least on a lip service level. Our government thinks that telling the truth will win, and all of our major faiths support this idea. However, India is one of the most corrupt nations in the world.
The actual degree of corruption in India is unknown. However, everyone is aware of how ubiquitous it is and how it is steadily eroding the nation’s foundation. There is little question that the future of democracy is in jeopardy if corruption, bribery, and nepotism are not stopped as soon as possible. The parallel is distressing to those of us who are aware of the high moral standards that prevailed before and shortly after India became an independent nation. We seek in vain the integrity, effectiveness, quality, and commitment to duty that once distinguished government. One starts to doubt whether we are the same people that rode to independence with the motto “truth and sacrifice.” A nation or society can improve its ability to reduce corruption to manageable levels by taking a comprehensive strategy and including all of the key players in the anti-corruption reform process. However, none of this can be dealt with without wise and tenacious political leadership. without substantial levels of public backing and knowledge, as well as without a driven and competent corporate sector. In many nations, creating a thriving wicked society that is willing and able to play a significant role in influencing its surroundings is the most challenging aspect of the equation.
REASONS FOR RISING CORRUPTION IN INDIA
The corruption practices have been happening due to various reasons in the system of the nation. Therefore, mentioning and discussing a few of them will surely highlight the main reasons for corruption.
Low Pay Scale of Government Employees- At present in India, there is a sterling increase in the demand for government jobs due to the security of jobs its offers and other benefits it gives to its employees. Due to the huge population and growing population, there is expanding demand for government jobs as everyone cannot secure his place in the private sector. A person who tirelessly prepares for getting a government job in India and if he is selected, he does not see any financial gain or activity of efforts which he has undergone while preparing for his exam. He, therefore, chooses an unethical way to gain more money in less period.
Lack of Accountability- A government employee is not responsible for reporting his duty or activity or any of the work carried out by him on a specific day. Therefore, he thinks that he is free to act in his way and not to abide by ethics or behaviour. It was after the passing of some acts legislations and statutes that brought the illegal practice of corruption under the surveillance of the government.
Lack of Stick and Fast Punishments- One of the most crucial features of the government job is that there is a lack of punishment which a government employee can get if he is involved in corruption. If he is involved in corruption investigation proceedings are undertaken against him which do not render any result and the employee is transferred from one place to another or merely there is suspended for a particular period.
Greed and the Need of becoming rich overnight- One of the main reasons for growing corruption is the mindset of the people working in the government sector. The need and desire to become rich and successful is also a motivating factor in involving such type of heinous activity.
Tolerance of corruption by the people- In the present world where everyone is busy carrying out his day-to-day activity in the best and most effective way no one wants that his time is wasted on any futile activity which does not render any financial gain. Therefore, when they visit any government office, they try to adopt corrupt practices to get their job done easily.
EFFECTS OR CONSEQUENCES OF CORRUPTION
Lack of quality of services- The quality of services drastically decreases if one is involved in corrupt practices as he does not put any effort from his side in rendering services and gives services in the easiest way possible which in turn decreases the quality of services that needs to be maintained by the government.
Lack of proper justice- If corruption is taking place in any judicial department or any department which is authorized to provide give basic services to common people then it will affect a large portion of the society.
Low rate of economic growth- The involvement of any government employee will surely affect the growth rate of the nation as it will put a halt to the flow of currency in the economy. There is a hoarding of money in the form of cash, assets, and in the form of stocks which directly plays a role of hindrance in the growth of economy of the nation.
Low Foreign Direct Investment- If corruption exists in the government sector foreign investor will hesitate to invest in the nation as they know that their funds or capital will not be utilized in the best and most effective manner.
STEPS TAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT TO CURB THE PRACTICES
To codify all existing laws, eliminate corruption in government institutions, and prosecute and discipline public servants who commit corrupt activities, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (POCA)1, was developed. It is a potent weapon against this evil. The success of the anti-corruption campaign depends on how well this legislation works. This Act gives the Central Government the power to appoint judges to look into and try instances involving offenses that are punished under the Act, as well as situations where an attempt or conspiracy to commit an offense is made.
EVOLUTION OF THE ACT
The Indian Penal Code of 18602 first addressed cases of bribery and corruption involving public employees in the Indian Justice System. However, it became clear throughout the 1945s that the legislation in place at the time was inadequate to address the circumstances, and it was considered that special rules about bribery and corruption were to be established. As a result, the Prevention of Corruption Act, of 19473, was impressively enacted. The Anti-Corruption Laws (Amendment) Act of 19644 and the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 19525, both of which were based on the Santhanam Committee’s recommendations, respectively, altered the 1947 Act twice.
As a result, the 1988 Prevention of Corruption Act, which became effective on September 9, 1988, was based on the 1947 Act. To make the whole resolution more feasible and eradicate corruption in Indian government offices and public sector organizations, it was intended to enhance the standards and widen the inclusion of anti-corruption laws. The Prevention of Corruption Act’s goal is to eradicate corruption throughout Indian government agencies and the public sector.
The extent of corruption in government organizations must be understood, but it’s also critical to prosecute and discipline public employees who take part in corrupt activities. The Act also takes into account individuals who helped the offenders commit the bribery or corruption offense.
AMENDMENTS IN ACT FOR BETTER WORKING
Some of the amendments were done in the year 2013 and 2018 which was related to bribery and the period given to Special Judges (Section 4)6 for investigating the case.
2013’s Amendments
Bribery was declared a criminal offense. A person who was forced to bribe will not be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act if they disclose the incident to law authorities within seven days.
The modified criminal misbehaviour law addressed two different sorts of offenses. Illegal enrichment, which is defined as accumulating money that is out of proportion to one’s sources of income, and fraudulent property misappropriation are the offenses.
The modifications were made with the pertinent government authority’s prior consent to undertake any inquiry into any offenses allegedly committed in public instances. However, if the criminal has already been detained for accepting bribes, then this authorization is not required.
If a special judge is handling the case, the PCA trial limit was set at two years. Only four years should be allowed for the trial’s overall duration.
2018’s Amendments
Bribery is a particular and explicit offense.
Anyone who accepts bribes faces a fine and a jail sentence of three to seven years.
Bribe-givers may additionally face a fine and a sentence of up to 7 years in jail.
In the case that the incident is reported to law enforcement within 7 days, the 2018 amendment adds a provision to safeguard persons who have been coerced to pay a bribe.
It redefines criminal behaviour to just include property theft and having an excessive amount of assets.
By requiring that investigative agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation obtain prior clearance from a competent authority before starting an inquiry into them, it proposes a “shield” to protect government employees, including those who have retired, from punishment.
However, it specifies that such authorizations are not required in situations when a person is immediately detained on suspicion of taking or attempting to accept an unfair benefit for himself or another person.
The concept of “undue advantage” must be proven in every case of corruption involving a public employee.
Within two years, the trial in instances involving the payment of bribes and corruption must be concluded. Furthermore, the trial cannot be longer than four years, even with justifiable delays.
It includes the potential for business organizations that provide bribes to face sanctions or legal action. However, they don’t apply to nonprofit organizations.
It outlines the authority and processes for seizing and forfeiting the property of a public official suspected of corruption.
PENALTY AFTER 2018 AMENDMENT
The penalty for an infraction committed by a public employee has been increased under Sections 77, 128, and 149 of the Amendment Act from a minimum penalty of 6 months to a minimum punishment of 3 years and from a maximum punishment of 5 years to 7 years, with or without fine. In situations of abetment, sentences also go longer.
When a crime is committed repeatedly, the penalty is increased from a minimum of 2 years to 5 years and a maximum of 7 years to 10 years in jail.
Corruption by Public Servant: The Prevention of Corruption Act of 2018’s10, Section 13 made reference to the misappropriation of assets and unfair justifications for doing so. It offered the justification for making a criminal misconduct accusation against the public employee.
Sanctions for Prosecution: According to the 2018 Prevention of Corruption Act11, any prosecution of public employees must get the approval of the relevant government. Section 17A of the Amendment Act12 expands the protection to include inquiries or investigations made before prosecution. Therefore, neither a police officer nor a former one may open an investigation into a public employee.
CONCLUSION
One thing is abundantly clear from the above analysis: Corruption threatens not only the national or global economy but also the entire human race. Thousands of people and families in India are living in extreme poverty and are unable to access even the most basic necessities for survival. As a result, they are forced to bear the harsh consequences of corruption when they are unable to provide the required standard of service.
Endnotes:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act No 49 of 1988)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No 45 of 1860)
Prevention of Corruption Act (Act No 2 0f 1947)
Anti-Corruption Laws (Amendment) Act of 1964
Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1952
Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988
Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988
Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988
Section 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988
Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 (Act No 16 of 2018)
Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 (Act No 16 of 2018)
Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act 2018
This article is authored by Animesh Nagvanshi, a student at ICFAI University, Dehradun.
ICFAI University Tripura was established in 2004 by an Act of the State Legislature (Tripura Act 8 of 2004). ICFAI University Tripura is popularly known as IU Tripura. ICFAI University Tripura is accredited with ‘B+’ Grade by the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC), recognised by the University Grant Commission (UGC) and approved by the Bar Council of India (BCI). The mission of IU Tripura is to promote world-class education to the students. ICFAI University Tripura offers courses at UG, PG, integrated, diploma, postgraduate diploma, M.Phil and Ph.D level. ICFAI University Tripura has national and international collaborations with other universities and institutions such as IIT Bombay, Daffodil International University, Bangladesh and many more.
ICFAI University, Tripura is inviting applications for the position of Professor, Associate Professor or Assistant Professor for various departments including law. Those various departments include:
Law
Education
Special Education (ID/MR)
English
Psychology
Clinical Psychology
Sociology
Soft Skills
French
Management
Commerce
Statistics
Paramedical Sciences
Computer Science & Engineering
Administrative Position
Student Placement
Qualifications and Experience
Educational Qualification and Experience for Various Positions, as per UGC norms.
In addition, teaching/research/industry experience as applicable for different positions, the applicant should have an excellent academic record throughout.
The candidate should be computer savvy with excellent communication and interpersonal skills.
Remuneration
As per university norms, however, salary is not a constraint for deserving candidates.
Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.
Centurion University is duly recognized as a pioneer in ‘Skill Integrated Higher Education”. Its unique model lays specific emphasis on creating sustainable livelihoods on a national scale in challenging geographies through education that results in employability and sparks entrepreneurship. This model has been recognized by multiple Governments (Central and State), International Organizations such as UNESCO and the World Bank as well as Policy Think-tanks such as the Niti Ayog.
Centurion University of Technology and Management is inviting applications for Faculty for the School of Law.
Positions
Professor and Associate Professor
Location
Bhubaneswar
Eligibility
The eligibility criterion is the same as per the UGC norms.
The candidate must hold Bachelor’s Degree in Law or LLM completed or PhD in Law Completed
Experience
For Professors and Associate Professors, a minimum of 7 years of teaching experience
At least 3 Scopus or UGC Care Publications
Remuneration
According to UGC Norms
Deadline
Till 15th July 2023
Application Process
Interested candidates may send their complete CV, copies of Degree/Experience Certificate at careers@cutm.ac.in.
Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.
PhonePe is India’s leading digital payments platform with over 400 million+ registered users. Using PhonePe, users can send and receive money, recharge mobile, DTH, and data cards, pay at stores, make utility payments, buy gold, and make investments. PhonePe went live for customers in August 2016 and was the first non-banking UPI app that offered money transfers to individuals and merchants, recharges and bill payments to begin with. In 2017, PhonePe forayed into financial services with the launch of digital gold, providing users with a safe and convenient option to buy 24-karat gold securely on its platform. PhonePe has since launched Mutual Funds and Insurance products like tax-saving funds, liquid funds, international travel insurance, and Corona Care, a dedicated insurance product for the COVID-19 pandemic among others.
The Role
Part of the BFSI Regulatory and Legal team at Bangalore with experience in any one of the BFSI sectors like stock broking, mutual funds, and investment advisor and open to work for all BFSI sectors. The role may involve the preparation, finalization, and presentation of applications including license/ registration applications to the Regulators, tracking Regulatory developments, preparation of Regulatory manuals for internal teams, interpretation of regulations, providing opinions on regulatory matters, coordination with internal teams, assisting in updating or drafting new polices on the basis of regulatory developments.
Have experience in Regulatory Interactions along with strong commercial understanding and negotiating skills.
Assist in developing BFSI standards aligned to the Regulations / regulatory requirements and internal policies/procedures.
Description of work areas
A) Regulatory:
Providing legal advice to business/compliance/ tech/ operations/ product on day to day operations of the business.
Preparing and filing the new or renewal license applications and managing database for license applications and regulatory correspondence.
Coordination with teams to ensure timely completion of all requirements and filing of the application.
Interacting with Regulators on a regular basis in relation to applications/ licenses/ queries.
Preparation of Regulatory Manuals / Guardrails for business including for any scheduled / unscheduled inspection by Regulators.
B) Process:
Communications with relevant internal and external parties – business teams, Compliance, Tech or operations teams for resolution of their queries.
Managing License database on a regular basis.
Keep abreast of legislative change; maintain current knowledge of alterations in legislation to continue to improve contract versions
Co-ordinate with Regulators
Ideal Candidate
LL.B/ LLM
Minimum 8 years post-qualification experience. Open to work in all BFSI sectors. A right mix of law firm and in-house counsel experience in Banking, Stock broking, Insurance or other financial services would be preferred.
Have strong drafting and communication skills.
Overall good legal knowledge (financial sector laws, corporate law, business laws, data privacy, info sec standards, etc)
Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.
SHIELD is the world’s leading risk intelligence company, empowering online businesses to stop fraud, build trust, and drive growth. Powered by the latest AI technology, SHIELD combines cutting-edge device fingerprinting with its proprietary Global Intelligence Network to detect new and unknown fraud threats in real-time. SHIELD offers a range of solutions that span device fingerprinting, enterprise-grade protection, ad fraud prevention, and alternative credit risk intelligence. With offices across the globe and customers on every continent, SHIELD is rapidly achieving its global mission – to be the shield that enables trust for the world.
Job Title
Paralegal
Responsibilities
As a Paralegal, you will be responsible for preparing, reviewing and amending agreements and other legal documents. You will support SHIELD business units globally by providing legal services and participating in internal meetings. They are looking for an experienced, reliable and driven Paralegal who is passionate about corporate law and seeks challenges working for a fast-growing company.
Prepare, review and amend agreements and other legal documents.
Improve and develop a range of legal templates by working with attorneys and external law firms while maintaining and ensuring the templates are in compliance with SHIELD’s internal policies.
Provide high-quality legal services and advice and keep updated on changes in laws.
Conduct legal research and provide support for SHIELD legal projects as needed.
Perform other ad-hoc duties as assigned from time to time.
Requirements
Minimum Bachelor’s degree in Law or related field
Minimum 3 years of paralegal experience, especially in crafting commercial agreements
Excellent written and communication skills
Meticulous and having a keen eye for details
Ability to prioritise and manage time-sensitive documents and possesses exceptional organisational skills in a fast-paced environment
Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.
According to the Promissory Estoppel doctrine, the promisor will refrain from breaking the promise if it would be unfair for him to do so whenever an unambiguous promise is made with the intent to establish a legal relationship or affect one that will arise in the future, knowing or intending that it would be acted on by the other party and is in fact acted on. This is the main referred law in this present case. If parties who had already agreed to clear-cut terms involving specific legal outcomes later engage in negotiation, it may be assumed that Promissory Estoppel only applies to situations in which the parties are already bound by a legal or contractual relationship and one of them promises the other that strict legal rights under the contract won’t be enforced. However, the court found that the theory of promissory estoppel, even as it was originally stated by Lord Denning in the High Trees case, did not contain any such limitation, and thus it cannot apply in the current case, Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills.
Background of the Case
The appealing party in this instance was a limited sugar production company. His main line of work was producing and selling sugars. On October 10th, 1968, news broke that the respondent (In this case- The state of Uttar Pradesh) had decided to exempt all new modern units in the State of Uttar Pradesh from the Tax charges for a period of three years under Section 4-A of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948. On October 11th, 1968, the appealing party spoke with the Director of Industries, stating that the party sought confirmation of the exemption and wished to establish a factory to produce vanaspati in light of the business charge occasion given by the administration. The appointment was confirmed by the director of industries. The Chief Secretary of the Government of Uttar Pradesh made an affirmation with a similar effect too.
The appealing party went ahead and built up the processing plant after receiving these certifications. The Uttar Pradesh State government reexamined the issue of exclusion in May 1969 and suggested the litigant attend a gathering. The representative of the appealing party testified at the meeting that the plaintiff had continued constructing the manufacturing facility on the affirmation and assurance of the respondent (the legislature of Uttar Pradesh). He took out a sizable loan and began to pay it back under the impression that the government had exempted him from paying taxes. But after some time, the government reconsidered its tax exemption strategy. It requested the petitioner attend a meeting discussing this matter and called for one to be held. To attend the meeting, the petitioner dispatched a representative. In any case, the State Government of Uttar Pradesh made the strategic decision on January 20th, 1970, to grant a small reduction in the deals charge to new vanaspati units that began operations by September 30th, 1970. Once again, however, the State govt. went back even on this promise denying any concession to be given. Plaintiff sued the government on account of promissory estoppel.
Issues Raised
The issues raised in this case are-
Whether the plaintiff’s acceptance of a partial exemption rendered his entitlement to have a cause of action?
Whether the plaintiff has a claim based on promissory estoppel?
Is it possible to take such action against the government when it is functioning in such capacities as government, sovereign, or administrative?
Given that the plaintiff did not experience any harm, would the theory of Promissory Estoppel apply in the current situation?
Contentions of Parties
Arguments of Petitioner- The main defence put forth on behalf of the appellant was that the respondent had made a categorical assurance on behalf of the State Government that the appellant would be exempt from payment of sales tax for a period of three years from the date of commencement of production. This assurance was made knowing or intending that the appellant would act on it, and in fact, the appellant did act in reliance on it and the State Government changed its position. The appellant argued that since waiver was a factual issue that needed to be pled and since it wasn’t addressed in the affidavit submitted by the State Government in opposition to the writ petition, the State Government was ineligible to rely on the waiver argument. It was claimed by the appellant that even if the waiver defence was allowed to be raised, despite the fact that it had no mention in the pleadings, no waiver had been established because there was no evidence to support the circumstances under which it had sent the letter. It was also impossible to claim that the appellant, with full knowledge of its right to claim complete exemption from payment of sales tax, had sent the letter.
Arguments from Respondent side- On the other hand, the State Government vigorously advanced the waiver argument, arguing that by addressing the letter dated June 25, 1970, the appellant had expressly forfeited its entitlement to full exemption from payment of sales tax. The State Government further argued that, even in the event of a waiver, the appellant would not be permitted to enforce the assurance provided by the fourth respondent because the State Government was not a party to the assurance, and that, in addition, in the absence of notification under section 4A, the State Government could not be prevented from enforcing the appellant’s obligation to pay sales tax under the terms of the Act. The State Government argued that there could not be a promissory estoppel against the State Government in order to prevent it from developing and carrying out its policies in the public interest. These were essentially the opposing arguments put out on behalf of the parties, and we will now analyse them.
Judgement
Though the division bench of the High Court rejected the plea for seeking promissory Estoppel against the respondents, the honourable Supreme Court held that-
The decision of the High Court of not granting Promissory Estoppel on the ground that the petitioner has waived that right and so can not have his course of action was wrong.
The waiver is a factual issue that needs to be adequately argued and proven. No plea of waiver may be raised unless it is pleaded and the facts supporting it are set forth in the pleadings.
Waiver is the act of giving up a right; it can be expressed or inferred from behaviour, but it must be “an intentional act with knowledge” in order to be considered valid. There can be no waiver unless the individual who is supposed to have done so is fully aware of his rights and intentionally gives them up while doing so.
‘Promissory estoppel’ is a legal theory that was developed by equity to prevent injustice when a promise is made by someone who knows that it will be carried out and who is the person to whom it is made and in fact it is so. It is unfair to permit the party making the promise to break it after it has been acted upon. Despite being known as promissory estoppel, this legal doctrine has nothing to do with contracts or estoppel. The interposition of equity, which has always acted in accordance with form to lessen the burdens of strict law, serves as the foundation of the concept.
The true meaning of promissory estoppel is that when one party makes a clear and unambiguous promise to another party through words or conduct that is intended to forge a future legal relationship, knowing or intending that the other party will act on the promise, and that the other party actually does act on the promise, the promise will be enforceable against the party who made it and he will be bound by it whether there is a pre-existing relationship between those parties or not. In a situation when justice and fairness call for it, equity will prevent a person from insisting on stringent legal rights even when they originate from his own title deeds or from legislation rather than under any contract.
The same limiting estoppel in the strict meaning of the word cannot prevent the notion of promissory estoppel. It is an equitable concept that the Courts developed for the purpose of upholding justice, thus there is no reason why it should only be applied sparingly as a form of defence or used as a shield rather than a sword to establish a claim. It might serve as the impetus for legal action.
The Government would be held bound by the promise and the promise would be enforceable against the Government at the request of the promisee even though there is no consideration for the promise and the promise is not recorded in the form of a formal contract as required when the Government makes a promise knowing or intending that it would be acted on by the promisee and the promisee, acting in reliance on it, changes his position.
The doctrine of promissory estoppel must give way when equity demands it since it is an equitable doctrine. The Court would not raise equity in favour of the promisee and enforce the promise against the Government if the Government could demonstrate that, given the facts as they have developed, it would be unfair to hold it to the promise it made.
The moral standards of the society must be in accordance with the law for it to be legitimate and win social approval. Closing the gap between morality and law and achieving as close to a match as feasible between the two should be the constant goal of legislatures and courts. A key judicial advancement in that direction is the promissory estopped concept.
The distinction between a private person and a public body cannot be made in terms of the promissory estoppel theory. This idea also applies to a government entity like a city council. This approach, however, cannot be used to circumvent a legal responsibility or liability. It cannot be used to force the government or even a private person to carry out an unlawful act. Additionally, promissory estoppel cannot be used to prevent the exercise of legislative power. By using the promissory estoppel concept, the Legislature can never be prevented from doing its legislative duties.
Conclusion
The case turned out to be very important in other cases. The court attempted to define promissory estoppels in this instance. This case did a good job of demonstrating how promissory estoppel could be a defence. However, it must be used with the doctrine of consideration if it is to be used as a weapon. This case demonstrated how important it is for society to stop fraud and injustice. This certificate appeal brings up a significant issue in the area of public law. Although it is a relatively new doctrine, it has the potential to be so prolific and packed with development opportunities that traditional attorneys are concerned it could upend established doctrines, which are viewed almost reverently and have held the line for decades.
This article is authored by Dibyojit Mukherjee, a student at the Institute of Law, Nirma University.
The NLIU Law Review is the flagship journal of the National Law Institute University, Bhopal. It is a peer-reviewed academic law journal, published biannually by the students of the University. The Law Review aims to promote a culture of scholarly research and academic writing by bringing to the forefront, articles on subjects of interest to the legal profession and academia.
As of the year 2023, the Law Review has completed thirteen successful years, with nineteen editions in publication. NLR has been successfully recognised by, and indexed on several databases including Manupatra, SCC and HeinOnline.
NLIU Law Review is now accepting submissions of manuscripts for publication in Volume XIII, Issue I of the journal.
Theme
The NLIU Law Review does not restrict itself to any particular area of law and welcomes contributions from all branches of law, as long as the work is relevant, up-to-date and original.
Mode of Submission
Submissions must be made only through the electronic form available on our website. Submissions made through any other medium, including by way of emails, shall not be considered for review by the Editorial Board.
All the submissions must be in (.docx) format. They must be word processed and compatible with Microsoft Word 2007 or above.
The manuscript should not contain any information that can be used to identify the author. All the relevant details must be mentioned only within the form attached.
Submissions must be made on or before 23:59 hours on August 31, 2023.
Authors shall receive an email acknowledging the receipt of their manuscript within ten days of receiving the entry. If the same is not received, authors can write at lawreview@nliu.ac.in.
Types of Submissions accepted by the NLIU Law Review:
Manuscripts on any topic of contemporary legal relevance meeting the below-mentioned criteria:
Articles: 4,000-10,000 words
Case Notes: 2,000-5,000 words
Legislative Comments: 1,000-3,000 words
Book reviews: 1,000-3,000 words
The word limit is exclusive of the abstract and the footnotes.
Submission Guidelines
Manuscripts submitted to the Journal must not be co-authored by more than two persons. Authors are permitted to send only one submission per author or a team of co-authors.
Manuscripts must include an abstract of 250-300 words. The abstract must highlight the structure and the essence of the manuscript.
Authors are requested to strictly adhere to our Submission Guidelines.
Manuscripts not in conformity with the Submission Guidelines may be rejected at the sole discretion of the Editorial Board. The Editorial Board reserves the right to send the manuscripts back to the authors for any modification(s) at any stage, in the event of non-conformity with any of the submission guidelines.
The Editorial Board may, in its absolute discretion, waive any of the above rules or amend the process. In case of any dispute or ambiguity, the decision of the Editorial Board shall be final and binding.
Contact Details
In case of any query related to the NLIU Law Review, please reach out to lawreview@nliu.ac.in or to Akshat Shukla (Editor-in-Chief) +91 79870 85907 or Pooja V (Deputy Editor-in-Chief) +91 63694 68075.
Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.
Utkrishtha Law Offices is a full-service law firm offering its expertise to various entities in the domain of including but not limited to Arbitration Laws, Insolvency & Bankruptcy Laws, Cable & Broadcasting Laws, Labour Laws, Commercial Laws, Family Laws, Real Estate Laws, Consumer Protection Laws, & Criminal Laws etc.
They are looking for an enrolled Advocate having a minimum PQE of 2 years.
Job Title
Legal Associate
Requirements
The candidate should have excellent research and drafting skills. He should be able to draft and finalize drafts independently.
The candidate should have sound knowledge of CPC, Negotiable Instruments Act, Commercial Courts Act, Telecom and Broadcasting Laws, IBC, Companies Act and other related laws.
The candidate should be confident in handling effective court hearings.
The candidate should be sincere, diligent and hardworking.
Application Process
Candidates can apply by sharing resumes and cover letters on Contact@utkrishthalaw.com. Joining will be on an immediate basis.
Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.
