TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (11) TMI 313
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ami and Kumari Greeshma (minors) by their grand father. The case of the complainants was that the Opposite Party introduced the above scheme and issued a brochure in October 1992 wherein the scheme was set out as follows: "1. The Scheme: The scheme provides for an investment that will grow 21 times in 20 years. Thus Rs. 1,000 invested in the name of a female child below the age of one year will become Rs. 21,000 after 20 years and Rs. 10,000 will become Rs. 2.1 lakhs. Depending upon the age of the child for whom the investment is made, the maturity value will vary from a minimum of Rs. 11,000 to Rs. 21,000 as shown below: Entry Age Minimum amount Maturity on completion of 20 years age Rs. Rs. Up to and including 1 1,000 21,000 Above 1 to 2 1,000 18,000 Above 2 to 3 1,000 15,000 Above 3 to 4 1,000 13,000 Above 4 to 5 1,000 11,000 The maturity value will be given only to the beneficiary. Till then no body can touch it. It is thus an irrevocable gift." Acting on the said brochure the guardian of the complainants purchased the following units for them:- (i )Complainant No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evised one in which the term 'lock-in-period' was inserted. Clause VII of the scheme which shows how it works, reads as follows: "VII. How the Scheme Works? The scheme envisages a minimum investment of Rs. 1000 which can be invested by any adult or person as mentioned hereinbefore in favour of the girl child who is not exceeding 5 years of age. Depending upon the age of the child while entering the scheme, the lock-in-period will be for a minimum 16 years and the maturity will vary from Rs. 11,000 to Rs. 21,000 as per the chart given below: Entry Age Minimum amount lock-in- period Maturity on completion of 20 years age Rs. Rs. Up to and including 1 1,000 20 21,000 Above 1 to 2 1,000 19 18,000 Above 2 to 3 1,000 18 15,000 Above 3 to 4 1,000 17 13,000 Above 4 to 5 1,000 16 11,000 Thus, according to the revised brochure, the relevant period is, therefore, not the age of the unitholder but the lock-in-period. 5. In the memorandum of appeal the respondent (i.e., complainants) have pleaded that the UTI is free to revise the brochure but it is, however, reasonable to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the brochure and form issued in October 1992. The grandfather of the minors, acting upon that representation invested huge sum of Rs. 32,000 and purchased the abovesaid units in the names of the minor-complainants in the hope and belief that on completion of the age of 20 years they would receive the maturity amount shown in the said brochure applicable to the age at the time of investment. It may be mentioned here that the District Forum had further remarked that there are, however, exceptions to the doctrine of promissory estoppel as it cannot apply against the Legislature in the exercise of its legislative function nor can the Government or public authority be debarred by promissory estoppel from enforcing a statutory provision nor can the principles of promissory estoppel be used to compel the Government or public authority to carry out a promise or representation which is contrary to law or which is outside their authority or power. The District Forum went on to state that the above exceptions do not apply to the present case because compelling the Opposite Party to make good its promise does not entail debarring the Trust from enforcing a statutory provision or requiring i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heme and remarked that it is of the view that it is open to the Chairman to exercise the power under that clause in favour of the complainants. Accordingly, the order of the District Forum was upheld and the appeal of UTI was dismissed. 9. Feeling aggrieved, the UTI has come before this Commission by way of this revision petition. 10. We have heard the parties and gone through the record. It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that it is not logical to capitalise on a small error which occurred in the printing of the pamphlet by the addition of the word 'age' and the Commission should have concluded that money can grow only from the date of investment and not prior to the date of investment. On behalf of the complainant-respondent it was urged that there was no printing error and in fact Circular dated 1-10-1992, inter alia, states: "This is an open-ended scheme under which an irrevocable gift of a minimum of Rs. 1,000 can be made to a girl child not exceeding 5 years of age. There is no limit on maximum investment. An investment of Rs. 1,000 in the name of the girl child at birth will fetch Rs. 21,000 on completion of 20 years of age. It means money multiplies 21 times ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appreciate this reasoning of the District Forum and the State Commission. No Court or Authority can force the Chairman or the Executive Trustee of the Trust to exercise its discretionary power in any particular way. It is for the Chairman or the Executive Trustee to exercise that power vested in them under that clause. It is for them to see if there is any particular case which needs the exercise of discretionary power for mitigation of any hardship. 13. Both the District Forum and the State Commission have also relied upon the principle of promissory estoppel. As already indicated we are of the opinion that in the present case the said principle is not applicable. Rajlakshmi Unit Scheme, 1992 was framed by the UTI in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by section 21. The said scheme was published in the Gazette of India dated 17-4-1993. Thus, this scheme was framed by the UTI under the powers given under a statute. It is settled principle that the principle of promissory estoppel is not applicable against a statute. If there is any agreement or contract between the parties which is against the statutory provisions that agreement is not enforceable. Here we may refer to the....