https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174135 A conditional electricity incentive scheme with a fixed terminal date did not attract promissory estoppel because no unequivocal promise of indefinite continuation or proved detrimental change of position was shown. In an appeal confined to substantial questions of law, concurrent factual findings on the scheme's limited validity were not reopened absent perversity or a legal question. Limitation under the Electricity Act appellate provision runs from communication of the order, not its pronouncement. Dismissal of a review petition does not cause merger of the original appellate order, because merger arises only where review results in variation, substitution, or vacation of that order. en-us Tue, 01 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Nov 2024 09:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174135 A conditional electricity incentive scheme with a fixed terminal date did not attract promissory estoppel because no unequivocal promise of indefinite continuation or proved detrimental change of position was shown. In an appeal confined to substantial questions of law, concurrent factual findings on the scheme's limited validity were not reopened absent perversity or a legal question. Limitation under the Electricity Act appellate provision runs from communication of the order, not its pronouncement. Dismissal of a review petition does not cause merger of the original appellate order, because merger arises only where review results in variation, substitution, or vacation of that order. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 01 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174135