M.P. MATHUR AND ORS. versus D.T.C. AND ORS.

M.P. MATHUR AND ORS. versus D.T.C. AND ORS.

The scheme was only enabling and did not compel DTC to sell the tenements; the resolutions were tentative, not final or communicated, and there was neither contract nor mutuality between the parties. Public interest justified the decision to rescind the offer, so the doctrine of promissory estoppel did not apply.

Parties
Appellants/plaintiffs: M.P. Mathur and Others; Respondents/defendants: Delhi Transport Corporation and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
24 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Decision of Delhi High Court Division Bench Reversing Single Judge
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Promissory Estoppel, Specific Relief, Administrative Discretion, Public Interest, Transfer of Government Housing, Contract Formation, Mutuality
Administrative Law Equity Property Law Constitutional Law Promissory Estoppel Specific Relief Administrative Discretion Public Interest +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M.P. Mathur and Others

Appellants/plaintiffs

Delhi Transport Corporation and Others

Respondents/defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Decision of Delhi High Court Division Bench Reversing Single Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel compelled DTC to transfer ownership of tenements to retired employees
  2. 2 Whether the relevant resolutions created legal or equitable rights in favour of the appellants to compel transfer
  3. 3 Whether the DTC's decision to rescind the policy of selling tenements was arbitrary, biased or discriminatory

Ratio Decidendi

The scheme was only enabling and did not compel DTC to sell the tenements; the resolutions were tentative, not final or communicated, and there was neither contract nor mutuality between the parties. Public interest justified the decision to rescind the offer, so the doctrine of promissory estoppel did not apply.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Dismissed the appeal; the Division Bench's reversal of the Single Judge's decree is upheld; no order as to costs.