https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103859 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. en-us Fri, 30 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103859 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. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 30 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103859