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 doctrine of laches is applicable in case of continuing wrong?

 As regards the issue of delay in matters pertaining to claims of pension, it has already been opined by this Court in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 that in cases of continuing or successive wrongs, delay and laches or limitation will not thwart the claim so long as the claim, if allowed, does not have any adverse repercussions on the settled third-party rights. This Court held:

7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.

Reportable

Supreme Court of India

Asger Ibrahim Amin vs Life Insurance Corp. Of India on 12 October, 2015

Bench: Vikramajit Sen, Abhay Manohar Sapre

Citation:(2016) 13 SCC 797

Print Page

What will be effect if employee makes delay in making claim for seniority?

 From the aforesaid pronouncement of law, it is manifest
that a litigant who invokes the jurisdiction of a court for claiming
seniority, it is obligatory on his part to come to the court at the
earliest or at least within a reasonable span of time. The belated
approach is impermissible as in the meantime interest of third
parties gets ripened and further interference after enormous
delay is likely to usher in a state of anarchy.
 The acts done during the interregnum are to be kept in
mind and should not be lightly brushed aside. It becomes an
obligation to take into consideration the balance of justice or
injustice in entertaining the petition or declining it on the ground
of delay and laches. It is a matter of great significance that at
one point of time equity that existed in favour of one melts into
total insignificance and paves the path of extinction with the
passage of time.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4986-4989 OF 2007
Vijay Kumar Kaul and others 
Versus
Union of India and others 
Dated:May 25, 2012
 Dipak Misra, J.

Print Page

Doctrine of laches.

The Court also quoted following passage from the Halsbury's Laws of
England (para 911, p.395):
“In determining whether there has been such delay as to
amount to laches, the chief points to be considered are:
(i) acquiescence on the claimant's part; and
(ii)any change of position that has occurred on the
defendant's part.
Acquiescence in this sense does not mean standing by
while the violation of a right is in progress, but assent after
the violation has been completed and the claimant has
become aware of it. It is unjust to give the claimant a
remedy where, by his conduct, he has done that which
might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it; or
where by his might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a
waiver of it; or where by his conduct and neglect, though
not waiving the remedy, he has put the other party in a
position in which it would not be reasonable to place him if
the remedy were afterwards to be asserted. In such
cases lapse of time and delay are most material. Upon
these considerations rests the doctrine of laches.”

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9849 OF 2014
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 18639 OF 2012)
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

VERSUS
ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA & ORS.

Citation; 2014 ALLSCR3645

Print Page

Basic concept of doctrine of delay and laches

 It has been further stated therein that

if there is inordinate delay on the part of the
petitioner in filing a petition and such delay is
not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may
decline to intervene and grant relief in the
exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Emphasis was
laid on the principle of delay and laches stating
that resort to the extraordinary remedy under
the writ jurisdiction at a belated stage is likely to
cause confusion and public inconvenience and
bring in injustice.
16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should
not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is
required to weigh the explanation offered and
the acceptability of the same. The court should
bear in mind that it is exercising an
extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a
constitutional court it has a duty to protect the
rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to
keep itself alive to the primary principle that
when an aggrieved person, without adequate
reason, approaches the court at his own leisure

or pleasure, the Court would be under legal
obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a
belated stage should be entertained or not. Be
it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In
certain circumstances delay and laches may not
be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate
delay would only invite disaster for the litigant
who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay
reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a
litigant – a litigant who has forgotten the basic
norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest
thief of time” and second, law does not permit
one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does
bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. In
the case at hand, though there has been four
years’ delay in approaching the court, yet the
writ court chose not to address the same. It is
the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such
enormous delay is to be ignored without any
justification. That apart, in the present case,
such belated approach gains more significance

as the respondent-employee being absolutely
careless to his duty and nurturing a
lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had
remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext
of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost
of repetition that remaining innocuously
oblivious to such delay does not foster the
cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in
injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such
delay may have impact on others’ ripened rights
and may unnecessarily drag others into
litigation which in acceptable realm of
probability, may have been treated to have
attained finality. A court is not expected to give
indulgence to such indolent persons - who
compete with ‘Kumbhakarna’ or for that matter
‘Rip Van Winkle’. In our considered opinion,
such delay does not deserve any indulgence
and on the said ground alone the writ court
should have thrown the petition overboard at
the very threshold.

Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1941 OF 2014
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 15530 of 2013)
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply
and Sewerage Board and others …
Appellants
Versus
T.T. Murali Babu …
Citation: 2014III AD (S.C.) 491, 2014(1)ESC35, (2014)2MLJ369, 2014(2)SCALE163, 2014 (2) SCJ 427
Dipak Misra, J.

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