https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168173 Executive arrangements concerning fishery rights were held unenforceable where they did not comply with Article 299 and, on the facts, required registration to transfer a profit a prendre. The alleged settlement therefore created no binding contract or enforceable title against the State. Promissory estoppel was unavailable because no completed lease or accepted change of position was shown, and estoppel could not be used to impose an obligation contrary to law in a sovereign executive context. Mandamus also failed because no statutory duty or corresponding legal right was established; relief could not rest on an unenforceable contractual claim. en-us Thu, 01 Sep 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Jul 2025 11:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168173 Executive arrangements concerning fishery rights were held unenforceable where they did not comply with Article 299 and, on the facts, required registration to transfer a profit a prendre. The alleged settlement therefore created no binding contract or enforceable title against the State. Promissory estoppel was unavailable because no completed lease or accepted change of position was shown, and estoppel could not be used to impose an obligation contrary to law in a sovereign executive context. Mandamus also failed because no statutory duty or corresponding legal right was established; relief could not rest on an unenforceable contractual claim. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 01 Sep 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168173