https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73661 The court ruled against the petitioners, a limited company seeking the return of bank guarantees due to delays in obtaining quota certificates. The court held that the policy did not mandate the return of guarantees for non-performance. The doctrine of promissory estoppel was deemed inapplicable as the petitioners did not suffer prejudice by relying on the circulars. Additionally, the court found no legal basis to compel the respondent to return guarantees based on an unauthorized promise. The court discharged the rule without costs, with a stay until a specified date. en-us Mon, 11 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Jun 2011 16:31:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73661 The court ruled against the petitioners, a limited company seeking the return of bank guarantees due to delays in obtaining quota certificates. The court held that the policy did not mandate the return of guarantees for non-performance. The doctrine of promissory estoppel was deemed inapplicable as the petitioners did not suffer prejudice by relying on the circulars. Additionally, the court found no legal basis to compel the respondent to return guarantees based on an unauthorized promise. The court discharged the rule without costs, with a stay until a specified date. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 11 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73661