ESTOPPEL :
The general rule of estoppel is when one person has by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative to deny the truth of that thing (Section 115). However, there is no estoppel against the Statute. Where the Statute prescribes a particular way of doing something, it has to be done in that manner only. Other relevant Sections are Sections 116 and 117.
Principle of Estoppel
Estoppel is based on the maxim ‘allegans contratia non est audiendus’ i.e. a person alleging contrary facts should not be heard. The principles of estoppel covers one kind of facts. It says that man cannot approbate and reprobate, or that a man cannot blow hot and cold, or that a man shall not say one thing at one time and later on say a different thing.
The doctrine of estoppel is based on the principle that it would be most inequitable and unjust that if one person, by a representation made, or by conduct amounting to a representation, has induced another to act as he would not otherwise have done, the person who made the representation should not be allowed to deny or repudiate the effect of his former statement to the loss and injury of the person who acted on it (Sorat Chunder v. Gopal Chunder).
Estoppel is a rule of evidence and does not give rise to a cause of action. Estoppel by record results from the judgement of a competent Court (Section 40, 41). It was laid down by the Privy Council in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghosh, (1930) 30 Cal. 530 PC, that the rule of estoppel does not apply where the statement is made to a person who knows the real facts represented and is not accordingly misled by it. The principle is that in such a case the conduct of the person seeking to invoke rule of estoppel is in no sense the effect of the representation made to him. The main determining element is not the effect of his representation or conduct as having induced another to act on the faith of such representation or conduct.
In Biju Patnaik University of Tech. Orissa v. Sairam College, AIR 2010 (NOC) 691 (Orissa), one private university permitted to conduct special examination of students prosecuting studies under one time approval policy. After inspection, 67 students were permitted to appear in the examination and their results declared. However, university declined to issue degree certificates to the students on the ground that they had to appear for further examination for another condensed course as per syllabus of university. It was held that once students appeared in an examination and their results declared, the university is estopped from taking decision withholding degree certificate after declaration of results.
There are different kinds of estoppel by conduct or estoppel in pais. They are: (a) estoppel by attestation (b) estoppel by contract (c) constructive estoppel (d) estoppel by election (e) equitable estoppel (f) estoppel by negligence, and (g) estoppel by silence.