https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183890 The appeal was dismissed by the High Court, which upheld the principle of promissory estoppel against the State of Orissa. The Court ruled that the State could not revise the terms for raw material supply retroactively, as it had previously assured the respondent of stable terms, leading the respondent to make business decisions. The absence of a written contract did not negate the applicability of promissory estoppel, as the respondent relied on the State's representations. The State's argument for revision based on error correction and public interest was rejected. The State was directed to implement the High Court's judgment promptly. en-us Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Jul 2024 11:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183890 The appeal was dismissed by the High Court, which upheld the principle of promissory estoppel against the State of Orissa. The Court ruled that the State could not revise the terms for raw material supply retroactively, as it had previously assured the respondent of stable terms, leading the respondent to make business decisions. The absence of a written contract did not negate the applicability of promissory estoppel, as the respondent relied on the State's representations. The State's argument for revision based on error correction and public interest was rejected. The State was directed to implement the High Court's judgment promptly. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183890