https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460138 A time-bound One Time Settlement had to be honoured according to its stipulated payment schedule, and the lender could withdraw the concession when the borrower defaulted and sought to alter the bargain. The surety and auction purchaser were treated as having sufficient interest to challenge the writ order and place revised offers, given their direct stake in the recovery process and the need to protect public money. Promissory estoppel could not be used to rewrite a commercial settlement or compel acceptance of the borrower's belated offer, so writ relief based on that doctrine was not justified. en-us Tue, 13 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Jan 2025 18:56:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460138 A time-bound One Time Settlement had to be honoured according to its stipulated payment schedule, and the lender could withdraw the concession when the borrower defaulted and sought to alter the bargain. The surety and auction purchaser were treated as having sufficient interest to challenge the writ order and place revised offers, given their direct stake in the recovery process and the need to protect public money. Promissory estoppel could not be used to rewrite a commercial settlement or compel acceptance of the borrower's belated offer, so writ relief based on that doctrine was not justified. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 13 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460138