https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100080 Permission for a non-resident's ice-shows was upheld as subject to foreign exchange control policy, and the refusal did not violate Article 19(1)(g) because the restriction was treated as reasonable and in public interest. The original permission was construed as limited to the first round of shows, not as a perpetual authorisation. Promissory estoppel failed because no clear and unequivocal promise of continuing permission was shown, nor was any detrimental reliance traced to such a promise. The absence of a fresh show-cause notice did not vitiate the refusal since the decisive grounds were already disclosed and a further hearing would have been futile. The contempt allegation also failed for want of wilful disobedience. en-us Thu, 07 May 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:41:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100080 Permission for a non-resident's ice-shows was upheld as subject to foreign exchange control policy, and the refusal did not violate Article 19(1)(g) because the restriction was treated as reasonable and in public interest. The original permission was construed as limited to the first round of shows, not as a perpetual authorisation. Promissory estoppel failed because no clear and unequivocal promise of continuing permission was shown, nor was any detrimental reliance traced to such a promise. The absence of a fresh show-cause notice did not vitiate the refusal since the decisive grounds were already disclosed and a further hearing would have been futile. The contempt allegation also failed for want of wilful disobedience. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 07 May 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100080