Statutory scheme prevails over brochure error; promissory estoppel cannot override the scheme's maturity terms.

A complaint based on a brochure's stated maturity date could not succeed where the underlying scheme was framed by UTI under statutory power and published in the Gazette. An inadvertent brochure expression, later clarified by insertion of a lock-in-period clause, did not override the statutory scheme or create a binding entitlement to a different maturity date. Representations contrary to statute are unenforceable, and promissory estoppel does not operate against the statute. The Commission therefore treated the alleged clerical error as incapable of displacing the scheme's terms and allowed the revision, setting aside the lower forum orders.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint could be allowed on the basis of the brochure and alleged mistake in the maturity date when the scheme itself was framed under statutory powers.

Analysis: The scheme was framed by the Unit Trust of India in exercise of statutory power under section 21 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 and was published in the Gazette. The earlier brochure contained an inadvertent expression concerning maturity, but the scheme was later clarified by insertion of the lock-in-period clause. A representation contrary to the statute or the statutory scheme could not be enforced, and the principle of promissory estoppel was inapplicable against the statute. The alleged clerical error could not override the terms of the scheme or create a binding right to a different maturity date.

Conclusion: The complaint was not maintainable on merits and the revision petition was allowed, with the orders of the District Forum and State Commission set aside.

---