Hello Ritu,
I have read your query and understood the concept. Here is my answer to this:
Sections 115 to 117 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 (IEA) deal with the concept of Promissory estoppel. Promissory estoppel can be defined as a legal doctrine that tends to prevent any person from revoking a promise if another party has relied on it to harm. In the case discussed above, the verbal promise of the bank manager regarding the approval of his loan could call upon this doctrine. For establishing a claim from promissory estoppel, several elements shall be proved.
At the very least, there should be a clear and evident promise, which in this case is the promise of the bank manager to get the loan approved. Secondly, John must show reasonable trust in the promise of the bank manager. By starting the construction of his new bakery based on the promise of the bank manager, John has shown his reliance.
Next, adverse reliance is required. John suffered several losses as he had already invested significant resources and signed contracts with contractors and suppliers. This depicts the fact that his trust in the promise of the bank manager caused detriment. Additionally, it must be shown that the bank would enjoy unjust favors if it withdrew its promise, as John has taken all the required actions based on their commitment.
If John wishes to appeal to the court about the bank, then in that case the court can command the bank to fulfill its promise and approve the loan as well. On the other hand, John could be provided with appropriate compensation for the financial losses due to the breach of contract by the bank. In another scenario, the outcome could be rescission, which would rehabilitate both parties to their primary positions if a loan agreement exists.
Nevertheless, outcomes in such cases can be volatile. The bank could bring up the fact that the promise was unclear or that John's dependency was unreasonable. Consulting with an attorney would be crucial for John to assess the strength of his case and ascertain the best course of action according to the specifications of his law and his situation.
I hope that I have cleared all your confusion, Feel free to ask for further clarifications.
Thank you.
