Whether principle of estoppel can override the law?

 It is settled principle that principle of estoppel cannot override the law. The manual duly approved by the Executive Council will prevail over any such principle of estoppel or acquiescence.

31. Further in the case of Tata Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (preventive), Jamnagar8, it has been laid down that there can be no estoppel against law. If the law requires something to be done in a particular manner, then it must be done in that manner, and if it is not done in that manner, then it would have no existence in the eye of the law. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 

 Civil Appeal Nos. 45784580 of 2022 

KRISHNA RAI (Dead) THROUGH LRs & ORS. Vs BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY THROUGH REGISTRAR & ORS.

Coram: DINESH MAHESHWARI; VIKRAM NATH, JJ. 

Author: Vikram Nath, J.

Dated: JUNE 16, 2022

Print Page

What is distinction between acquiescence and Laches?

 Laches unlike limitation is flexible. However, both limitation and laches destroy the remedy but not the right. Laches like acquiescence is based upon equitable considerations, but laches unlike acquiescence imports even simple passivity. On the other hand, acquiescence implies active assent and is based upon the rule of estoppel in pais. As a form of estoppel, it bars a party afterwards from complaining of the violation of the right. Even indirect acquiescence implies almost active consent, which is not to be inferred by mere silence or inaction which is involved in laches. Acquiescence in this manner is quite distinct from delay. Acquiescence virtually destroys the right of the person. Refer Footnote 18 Given the aforesaid legal position, inactive acquiescence on the part of the respondent can be inferred till the filing of the appeal, and not for the period post filing of the appeal. Nevertheless, this acquiescence being in the nature of estoppel bars the respondent from claiming violation of the right of fair representation.

2021 ALL SCR (ONLINE) 654
Supreme Court

JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

THE CHAIRMAN, STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs. M.J. JAMES

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8223 OF 2009

16th November 2021

Author: SANJIV KHANNA, J.

Print Page

Whether a party who has knowingly accepted benefits of order can assail said order later?

During the course of his submissions, Mr. Jafri, learned counsel for the petitioners has admitted that cost of Rs. 10,000/-, subject to which the ex-parte judgment and decree was set aside, was accepted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs.

4. The petitioners cannot “blow hot and cold”, “fast and loose” or “approbate and reprobate”. Where the petitioners have knowingly accepted the benefits of an order, they cannot be permitted to assail the same. This rule is applied to do equity. Therefore, in this case where the petitioners have already accepted the cost, they are estopped by their act, conduct and acquiescence to continue the present petition.

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(Before Vinod Goel, J.)

Mustaqeem  v.  Faiyaz alias Faizab 

C.R.P No. 65/2018

Decided on January 21, 2019

Citation: 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6751

Print Page

Whether encroacher can raise plea of estoppel or acquiescence?

 It is more than settled that the pleas of estoppel,
acquiescence etc. have to be specifically pleaded and proved. It would be
noticed that no specific plea to this effect has been raised by the
appellants/defendants before the trial Court nor has any such plea been
taken even before the first Appellate Court and thus the appellants are
precluded from raising this plea for the first time in the instant appeal.
12. As regards equity, it is more than settled that a trespasser or
encroacher has no equity in his favour and even the principles of estoppel

by conduct or principle of standby or principle of waiver or acquiescence
is not applicable in such cases. Equity cannot be extended to a party who
has committed deliberate acts and such acts are not bona fide either as
encroacher or as a mere trespasser. Equity principle cannot be stretched
too far and at any rate cannot be made applicable to the facts of the
present case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
R.S.A. No. 4172 of 2013
Dated: 1st March, 2017.
Bishamber Singh and others 
V
Rajinder Singh 
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Citation: AIR 2017 HP61

Print Page

Whether court should consider objection to jurisdiction while deciding to give decree on basis of arbitration award?

 The other observations of the Civil Court that the
objection of jurisdiction cannot be considered in a proceeding

filed to get decree on the award cannot be considered, is also
not tenable. In that matter also written statement was filed and
objection to jurisdiction was taken. When there is such objection,
the Civil Court is expected to give decision on this objection also.
Further, separate proceeding under section 33 of the Act was
there and so, while deciding to give decree on the basis of
award, it was necessary for the Civil Court to decide as to
whether Arbitral Tribunal had jurisdiction, authority. Only after
deciding such objection, the Court can pronounce the judgment
in terms of award. Other observations of the Civil Court that the
participation of the employer in the arbitral proceeding amounts
to acquiescence is also not tenable. When there is initial want of
jurisdiction, the things cannot be cured by acquiescence and the
party who appeared before the arbitrator, but took objection to
its jurisdiction is not established from questing the validity of the
award on the ground of jurisdiction.
16) In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court holds
that the Civil Court has committed error in giving decree on the
basis of award and it has committed error in rejecting the
objection application filed by the employer. Shri. Mahurkar could
not have been appointed as arbitrator and there was no such
arbitration agreement. Thus, award is liable to be set aside.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 9 OF 1999
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 551 OF 1999

Maharashtra Krishna Vally Development
Corporation 
V
 M/s. S.D. Shinde & Company

CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J.
DATED : 23rd November, 2015.
Citation: 2016(3) MHLJ 705

Print Page

Whether it is permissible to raise mutually destructive plea in industrial adjudication?

A definite stand was taken by the employees that they had been working under the contractors. It would, thus, in our opinion, not lie in their mouth to take a contradictory and inconsistent plea that they were also the workmen of the principal employer. To raise such a mutually destructive plea is impermissible in law. Such mutually destructive plea, in our opinion, should not be allowed to be raised even in an industrial adjudication. Common law principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence are applicable in an industrial adjudication."

Supreme Court of India

Himmat Singh & Ors vs I.C.I. India Ltd. & Ors on 31 January, 2008

Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam

           CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil)  7066 of 2001

Citation:2008 (5) ALLMR((NOC)17,2008 ALLSCR791

Print Page

Whether mistake is fraud?

A mistake is not a fraud. It may be discovered and in a given case it must be pleaded. Such plea must lead to a fundamental error. It can be a subject matter of acquiescence. In Kerr on the Law of Fraud and Mistake, 7th Edn. at page 599, it is stated "Where one party makes a mistake either of law or fact and the other party to a transaction allows him to act upon it, then (even though such other party may himself not know of the mistake) he may be estopped from setting up the mistake for having in effect ratified it. In one case where parties had acted on one construction of a deed for forty years the House of Lords held that neither party was estopped from setting up the mistake, and that rent underpaid for so long as it was not barred by the Statute of Limitation could be recovered."

Supreme Court of India

D.D.A. And Ors vs Joginder S. Monga And Ors on 12 December, 2003

Bench: Ashok Bhan, S.B. Sinha

Print Page

What constitute waiver of right under Securitization Act?

 Waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a right. It involves
conscious abandonment of an existing legal right, advantage,
benefit, claim
or privilege, which except for such a waiver, a
party could have enjoyed. In fact, it is an agreement not to assert a
right. There can be no waiver unless the person who is said to have
waived, is fully informed as to his rights and with full knowledge
about the same, he intentionally abandons them. (Vide Dawsons
Bank Ltd. v. Nippon Menkwa Kabushiki Kaisha, Basheshar Nath v.
CIT, Mademsetty Satyanarayana v. G. Yelloji Rao, Associated
Hotels of India Ltd. v. S.B. Sardar Ranjit Singh, Jaswantsingh
Mathurasingh v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn., Sikkim Subba
Associates v. State of Sikkim and Krishna Bahadur v. Purna

Theatre.)
42. This Court in Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay v. Dr
Hakimwadi Tenants’ Assn.
considered the issue of
waiver/acquiescence by the non-parties to the proceedings and held:
(SCC p. 65, paras 14-15)
“14. In order to constitute waiver, there must be voluntary
and intentional relinquishment of a right. The essence of a
waiver is an estoppel and where there is no estoppel, there
is no waiver. Estoppel and waiver are questions of
conduct and must necessarily be determined on the facts
of each case. ...

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4679 OF 2014
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (CIVIL) No. 35168 OF 2011]

Vasu P. Shetty V M/s Hotel Vandana Palace & Ors.

Dated;April 22, 2014

Print Page

Whether Jurisdiction can conferred on court with consent of parties or by order of superior Court?

 Indisputably, it is a settled legal proposition that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with the consent of the parties nor by a superior Court, and if the Court passes a decree having no jurisdiction over the matter, it would amount to nullity as the matter goes to the roots of the cause. Such an issue can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. The finding of a Court or Tribunal becomes irrelevant and unenforceable/ inexecutable once the forum is found to have no jurisdiction. Similarly, if a Court/Tribunal inherently lacks jurisdiction, acquiescence of party equally should not be permitted to perpetuate and perpetrate, defeating the legislative animation. The Court cannot derive jurisdiction apart from the Statute. In such eventuality the doctrine of waiver also does not apply.1

Supreme Court of India

Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Ors. vs Dir. Health Services,Haryana & ... on 11 July, 2013

Print Page