• Grundt v. Great Boulder Gold Mines Proprietary Ltd. (1939) 59 CLR 641
  • Central London Property Trust Ltd. vs. High Trees House Ltd. (1947) 1 KB 130
  • Combe vs. Bombe (1951) 2 KB 215
  • Tool Metal Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Tungsten Electric Co. Ltd. (1955) 2 All ER 657
  • Union of India v. Indo-Afghan Agencies Ltd. AIR 1968 SC 718
  • Turner Morrison and Co. Ltd. v. Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd. [1972]85ITR607(SC)
  • Sharma Transport Represented by D.P. Sharma v. Government of A.P. and Ors., AIR2002SC322
Even though the case would not fall within the terms of Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which enacts the rule of estoppel, it would still be open to a party who had acted on a representation made by the Government to claim that the Government should be bound to carry out the promise made by it even though the promise was not recorded in the form of a formal contract as required by Article 299 of the Constitution.
  • Union of India v. Indo-Afghan Agencies Ltd. AIR 1968 SC 718
In order to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel clear, sound and positive foundation must be laid in the petition itself by the party invoking the doctrine and bald expressions without any supporting material to the effect that the doctrine is attracted because the party invoking the doctrine has altered its position relying on the assurance of the Government would not be sufficient to press into aid the doctrine.
  • State of Arunachal Pradesh vs. Nezone Law House, Assam, (2008) 5 SCC 609