https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166872 A governmental promise to issue import licences, once knowingly relied on and acted upon by the promisee, could be enforced under promissory estoppel because the petitioners altered their position to their detriment. Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was maintainable since the impugned action was statutory and challenged as arbitrary State action, even though the underlying arrangement was contractual. Rule 6(1)(c) of the Import Control Order did not create an absolute bar to licences for a canalised item and could not be used to defeat the concluded arrangement without lawful justification. The refusals were held unsustainable and the import licences were directed to be granted. en-us Thu, 02 Aug 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Nov 2014 18:43:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166872 A governmental promise to issue import licences, once knowingly relied on and acted upon by the promisee, could be enforced under promissory estoppel because the petitioners altered their position to their detriment. Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was maintainable since the impugned action was statutory and challenged as arbitrary State action, even though the underlying arrangement was contractual. Rule 6(1)(c) of the Import Control Order did not create an absolute bar to licences for a canalised item and could not be used to defeat the concluded arrangement without lawful justification. The refusals were held unsustainable and the import licences were directed to be granted. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 02 Aug 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166872