There are estoppels and estoppels (Lord Denning). If equity is flexible enough to permit Proprietary Estoppel to be used as a cause of action, there is no reason in logic or principle why Promissory Estoppel should also not be available as a cause of action, if necessary to satisfy the equity.
“The law on the subject of Promissory Estoppel was recapitulated and succinctly dealt with by this Court in State of Punjab v. Nestle India Ltd., (2004) 6 SCC 465. It found the foundation of the doctrine laid in the decision in Collector of Bombay, 1952 SCR 43; the principle built upon in Anglo Afghan Agencies, 1968 (2) SCR 366; and the superstructure of the doctrine, with its pre-conditions, strengths and limitations outlined in the decision in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., (1979) 2 SCC 409. This Court then dealt with the discordant note in Jit Ram, (1985) 4 SCC 369 and how that was firmly disapproved in Godfrey Philips India Ltd., (1985) 4 SCC 369.”
– Hon’ble Justice U.U. Lalit, Devi Multiplex v. State of Gujarat, [Civil Appeal No. 6478 of 2009].