TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Dismisses Appeal: No Binding Right for Plaintiffs to Acquire Tenements, Promissory Estoppel Not Applicable.</h1> <h3>M.P. Mathur & ORS Versus D.T.C. And ORS</h3> M.P. Mathur & ORS Versus D.T.C. And ORS - 2007 AIR 414 2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 519 2006 (13) SCC 706 2006 (12) SCALE 447 Issues Involved:1. Scope and impact of DTC Resolutions No. 55/79, 139/79, 179/79, and 35/81.2. Alleged creation of legal rights under the resolutions.3. Application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel.4. Consideration of public interest versus individual rights.Detailed Analysis:1. Scope and Impact of DTC Resolutions:The case revolves around several resolutions passed by the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC). The plaintiffs argued that Resolution No. 139/79 dated 31.8.1979 created a legal right for them to acquire ownership of tenements. The DTC later rescinded this decision through Resolution No. 179/79 dated 3.12.1979 and Resolution No. 35/81 dated 2.3.1981, citing increased costs and financial constraints.2. Alleged Creation of Legal Rights:The plaintiffs contended that the resolutions, particularly those dated 18.4.1979 and 31.8.1979, created a legal right for them to purchase the tenements. They argued that DTC's subsequent resolutions rescinding this decision were arbitrary and without sufficient cause. However, the court found that these resolutions were tentative and did not constitute a binding contract. No formal communication or sale conditions were ever finalized or communicated to the plaintiffs, and thus no legal right was established.3. Application of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel:The plaintiffs based their case on the doctrine of promissory estoppel, arguing that they had altered their position to their detriment based on DTC's promise to sell the tenements. The court, however, held that promissory estoppel is based on equity and not on vested rights. It requires a balance between individual rights and larger public interest. The court found that DTC's decision was driven by public interest considerations, such as the need to accommodate in-service employees and financial constraints. Therefore, the doctrine of promissory estoppel did not apply in this case.4. Consideration of Public Interest versus Individual Rights:The court emphasized the importance of balancing individual rights against larger public interest. DTC, being a public sector undertaking, had to consider its financial viability and the need to house its in-service employees. The court noted that DTC was facing significant financial losses and had a pressing need to accommodate a large number of industrial workers. These considerations justified DTC's decision to rescind the earlier resolutions promising the sale of tenements to the plaintiffs.Conclusion:The court dismissed the civil appeal, upholding the Division Bench's decision to set aside the decree passed by the learned Single Judge. The court found that the resolutions did not create a binding legal right for the plaintiffs and that the doctrine of promissory estoppel did not apply due to overriding public interest considerations. The plaintiffs' arguments were not sufficient to compel DTC to transfer the tenements to them.
TaxTMI 