Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel

Author Details

This article is written by Ekta Aggarwal pursuing B.A.LL.B from KCC Institute of Legal and Higher Education (affiliated from Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi) during her August,2026 internship at LeDroit India.

Scope of the Article 

1. Introduction
2. Essentials of Estoppel
3. Types of Estoppels
4. Key rules of Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel
5. Limitations of Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel
6. No Estoppel against minors
7. Case Laws
8. Conclusion
9. References

Keywords

Doctrine, Estoppel, Justified, People’s compliance, Justice, Personality

Abstract

Estoppel due to an agreement with someone else’s words is a mechanism against inconsistency and serves the purpose of truthfulness after placing trust on representation. This doctrine applies based on the three fundamental ideas guiding its application through different situations in which the agreement is justified. The first idea reflects the meaning of the Latin saying “allegans contraria non est audiendus”, which means, in English, “one who asserts contradictory positions cannot be heard”.

Another important saying is known as “argumentum ad hominem”, meaning “an argument directed against a particular personality”. And finally, the last saying describes that estoppel is considered to be a right due to the Latin saying “juries est de jure”, which presumes that an enforcement of estoppel implies the use of the law by the court for ensuring fairness and justice. If considered together, the above-mentioned ideas create the basis for the doctrine of estoppel and enable its application when ensuring the necessity of people’s compliance with their own statements and behaviour.

1. Introduction

The doctrine of estoppel, as mentioned in Section 115 through Section 117 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, ensures that an individual cannot testify falsely by disallowing him to make contradictory statements during the judicial proceedings. The purpose of the doctrine is to prevent one individual from committing fraud against another individual. The doctrine makes a person liable for misrepresentation made by him through his utterances or activity.

                       Estoppel is a principle based on the rule expressed in the phrase “allegans contraria non est audiendus” which means any opposing facts cannot be accepted. The aim of estoppel is to avoid dishonest practices and deliver justice by promoting good faith. Sections 121 to 123 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 talk about the principle of estoppel. While Section 121 talks about general application of this principle, Sections 122 and 123 lay down the special instances of estoppel arising out of the agreements made between the parties. Section 115 pertains to the meaning of estoppel. It states that if one person has induced another to think any fact in a certain way by means of act or declaration, he or his representative is estopped from contradicting the truth of that fact. In short, estoppel means that a person cannot contradict, repudiate or prove false what he has said before in the Court of law.

            The theory of Promissory Estoppel is based on the idea of justice and ethics. It shows that when someone makes an assumption that they are going to enter into an agreement, that person also has certain responsibility towards the one they promised to. It follows that if they break their promise and choose not to go on with the deal it would not be fair. The fact that it is not necessary for the promisee to incur a loss as a result of the promise does not influence the application of the doctrine. The only thing that is needed is that the promise was made and the promisee changed his/her position due to the promise. Although the application of the doctrine has some limitations, the 108th report by the Law Commission recommends introducing a different provision to the Indian Contract Act.

2. Essentials of Estoppel

1. It is necessary for one party to inform the other party about the existence of a fact, which should be different from a promise.   
2. This representation must be made with the intention of getting that representation acted upon.   
3. The other party must accept the representation and rely on it. 
4. Actions must have been conducted based on the belief in that representation.
5. Types of Estoppels
6. Estoppel by matter of record 

Estoppel by record is a form of estoppel that precludes a party from re-litigating an issue or fact that has already been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction in a previous court proceeding where both parties involved were the same in that legal proceeding. The concept is based on the belief that once a case has been conclusively decided by the court, the same parties cannot dispute that particular case again in future legal proceedings.

2. Estoppel by deed

Estoppel by deed is a legal concept which prevents parties from asserting a position in a court that is contrary to the position previously taken in a deed. The concept is most commonly found in a situation where one person conveyed property they did not own, and is later involved in a litigation concerning that property.

3. Estoppel by Pais or by conduct

Estoppel by behavior occurs when under influence of the agreement, misrepresentation or inactivity a person convinces another person of certain things the latter relies and alters his position. Accordingly, a person who convinces the second party cannot contradict what he stated in the later stages.

           The case of Sardar Chand Singh vs Commissioner, Burdwan Division about the Managing Director of Messrs., Chang Singh, who was denied any license for revolver due to his involvement in murder cases. The District Magistrate issued an order stating the reason of denial, namely, public order and safety and Chand didn’t appeal against the decision. Thus, it was assumed that he has given his consent in this matter. Later when he applies for reconsideration of his case before the District Magistrate, he is denied due to the doctrine of ‘Estoppel by Conduct’.

4. Promissory estoppel

The theory of promissory estoppel enables the parties carrying out the promise to claim damages in circumstances where the promisee relied upon it reasonably and to his or her detriment, while it could be deemed to be reasonable for the promisor to expect such reliance. The doctrine will work whenever enforcing the promise is necessary for avoiding an unjust outcome. In other words, the legal principle will be applicable even in the absence of a contract, such as when consideration does not serve as a basis for the binding agreement.

5. Contractual Estoppel

Contractual estoppel is a legal doctrine that forbids a contracting party from denying or disavowing certain facts, representations or assumptions that they have agreed to and are stated in a contract. Also Contractual estoppel is when the parties have concurred that a certain state of affairs exists, and they are bound by this agreement regardless of later challenges to the facts.

4. Key rules of Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel

1. Estoppel must be mutual or reciprocal in nature, which means the doctrine has to be applicable to both parties involved in the contract.
2. According to the concept of estoppel, the doctrine will apply when the parties are able to enter a contract. Put simply, the parties must be competent enough to make a contract. This is one of the essential elements of this doctrine. The doctrine of estoppel can be used as a defense which helps to prove that there is one important condition for the formation of a contract- the parties must be able to enter into the contract, otherwise the doctrine cannot be used in the situation when one party can enter a contract while another one cannot do this.
3. The third thing is that equity doctrine of estoppel cannot be used when one party is asking the Court to force another party to do unreasonable things.
4. Limitations of Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel
5. Existing Legal Relationship

The doctrine of promissory estoppel is applicable when there is a legal relationship in place that the parties have altered or amended. According to the doctrine, a consideration must exist for a contract to be in place.

2. Change of Position

The wonder of bilateral executory contracts is that they are formed as soon as the promises are made. The doctrine of promissory estoppel necessitates that the party who intends to enforce the promise has changed position due to reliance on it.

3. Don’t use retract:

Because promissory estoppel is a judicial mandate, it can be used in cases where the promisor would be unjust to go back on the promise.

If this is not in question, the rule is not applicable.

4. Only for defense:

The nature of promissory estoppel is such that it can only be used to protect the party from the effect of a promise that was altered by the promisor.

It cannot be used to establish the claim of a party. Therefore, it is only a defensive measure.

5. To have suspension effect only:

It is believed that the rule may only have suspension effect regarding the obligations established by the prior contract.

6. No estoppel against Minors

The matter of estoppel concerning minors presented legal difficulties for the authorities involved in this situation. However, the authority responsible determined that they will not use the concept of estoppel in relation to minors. The principle of estoppel means that if a person has made a statement which causes an error in another person’s understanding, he or she is unable to deny their statement later on. This principle is applicable not only to individuals but to groups as well. Thus, the minor may address the agency with a request for help.

Will Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, stop a minor from proving that he is a minor even if he enters into an agreement by representing himself to be an adult? 

Although the point was raised but not decided upon in the case of Mohiri Bibi vs. Dharmodas Ghose, it has since been agreed upon in Sadik Ali Khan vs. Jai Kishore. The private council stated that when a child acts, his act is void and incapable of being affirmed in the court of law. The philosophy behind this is that no estoppel should apply to a child.

In other words, even if a child enters into an agreement lying about his age, he can always go back and claim “minority” to avoid the contract. In India, minority is a fact and not a right (unlike in England) and can be proved at any stage of proceedings regardless of circumstances.

7. Case Laws
8. Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway Company

 One of the primary and governing principles adhered to by all Courts of Equity is that if the parties have entered into an agreement which contains clear and unambiguous terms which prescribe certain lawful consequences and then subsequently they either act in a way or consent to an action which causes one of the parties to believe that the rights which arise from that contract will not be enforced or will be stayed or held in abeyance, the party who would otherwise have been entitled to the enforcement of those rights shall not be allowed to do so as it would be unfair in light of the relationships that had developed thus far.

2. M/S Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. … vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors on 12 December, 1978 

This case established a new precedent for applying the doctrine of promissory estoppel in court cases against the government. Here, the state was held culpable based on this doctrine even in the absence of a legal relationship between the concerned parties. The judgment expanded the area of application of the doctrine further beyond what was known in England by ruling that the doctrine can be an independent grounds for seeking justice in courts.

8. Conclusion

The concept of promissory estoppel allows for the other party to claim compensation for a promise. There have been instances where government entities have been held accountable for the making of promises under promissory estoppel, provided that the deceived party made his or her decisions only because he relied on that promise and irrespective of whether the promise rested on anything. Ultimately, the essence of the doctrine is that it prevents the promisor from backing down from their promise.

It has been stated that if the Government of India or of any State in India gives an assurance to a person and it does not violate any law or rules and regulations that need to be followed and it is not prejudicial to public interest then it would be obliged to follow that commitment after sometime.

Supreme Court of India has also stated that it is sufficient to act on such assurance or statement and no subsequent damage or injury needs to be proved. It also becomes irrelevant whether the assurance was wholly or partially responsible for the change in the position. It can also be said such situation arises that if the government or any individual entity gives an assurance to do something and later it backs out then the party would be at a loss if every party is allowed to go away from its obligation.