Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 40 (1.77 seconds)
Documents citing Dhiyan Singh And Another vs Jugal Kishore And Another on 22 February, 1950

K.S. Varghese vs St.Peter'S & Paul'S Syrian Orth.. on 3 July, 2017

Fazl Ali., J. and I endeavoured to explain this in Dhiyan Singh v. Jugal Kishore -What happens is this. The person estopped is not allowed to deny the existence of facts, namely the actings of the parties and so forth which would in law bring about the change in legal status, namely, the extinguishment of his own title and the transfer of it to another, for estoppel is no more than a rule of evidence which prevents a man from challenging the existence or 125 nonexistence of a fact. Once the facts are ascertained or by a fiction of law are deemed to exist, then it is those facts which bring about the alteration in legal status; it is not the estoppel as such nor is it the abandonment or waiver per se".
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 140 - Cited by 15 - A Mishra - Full Document

Urn: Cma / 2678U / 2026Lrs Of Late Shree ... vs City Pulse Enterprise Private Limited on 22 May, 2026

18. In our view, the ratio of the aforesaid decision is a complete answer to the defence raised by the respondents on the plea of estoppel against law. It is only because the respondents consented to have the disputes resolved through the arbitration of Mr. Vipin Sodhi that the compromise deed was executed and the respondents' appeal was disposed of accordingly. The appellants thereafter acted in accordance with the terms of the consent deed and altered their position to their detriment. They took steps to withdraw the First Information Report and also parted with substantial amounts as required by the consent deed. All these facts are sufficient to hold that after the parties accepted the consent deed, the appellants acted in accordance with its terms and altered their position. The respondents thus by their conduct of accepting the compromise deed based on the award of the arbitrator are now precluded from questioning its validity. As held in Dhiyan Singh (supra), the issue of invalidity of the award, as a question of law, cannot be considered de hors the conduct of parties. In these facts, the ratio of decisions relied upon by the respondents do not further their case. Hence, this contention of the respondents fails.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ravinder Kaur Grewal vs Manjit Kaur on 31 July, 2020

Saleha, AIR 1963 Pat 62 Kanhai Lal vs. Brij Lal, AIR 1918 PC 70 Dhiyan Singh vs. Jugal Kishore, AIR 1952 SC 145 T.V.R. Subbu Chetty’s Family Charities vs. M. Gaghava Mudaliar, AIR 1961 SC 797 Rachbha vs. Mt. Mendha, AIR 1947 All 177 Chief Controlling Revenue Authority vs. Smt. Satyawati Sood, AIR 1972 Delhi 171 (FB) Shyam Sunder vs. Siya Ram, AIR 1973 All 382 28 light of exposition of this Court in Kale (supra). A priori, we have no hesitation in affirming the conclusion reached by the first appellate Court that the document Exhibit P­6 was nothing but a memorandum of a family settlement. The established facts and circumstances clearly establish that a family settlement was arrived at in 1970 and also acted upon by the concerned parties.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

Smt Ismailbee vs Mehtab Saheb on 22 October, 2020

Saleha, AIR 1963 Pat 62 Kanhai Lal vs. Brij Lal, AIR 1918 PC 70 Dhiyan Singh vs. Jugal Kishore, AIR 1952 SC 145 T.V.R. Subbu Chetty's Family Charities vs. M. Gaghava Mudaliar, AIR 1961 SC Rachbha vs. Mt. Mendha, AIR 1947 All 177 Chief Controlling Revenue Authority vs. Smt. Satyawati Sood, AIR 1972 Delhi 171 (FB) Shyam Sunder vs. Siya Ram, AIR 1973 All 382 light of exposition of this Court in Kale (supra). A priori, we have no hesitation in affirming the conclusion reached by the first appellate Court that the document Exhibit P6 was nothing but a memorandum of a family settlement. The established facts and circumstances clearly establish that a family settlement was arrived at in 1970 and also acted upon by the concerned parties. That finding of fact recorded by the first appellate Court being unexceptionable, it must follow that the document Exhibit P6 was merely a memorandum of a family settlement so arrived 42 at. Resultantly, it was not required to be registered and in any case, keeping in mind the settled legal position, the contesting defendants were estopped from resiling from the stated arrangement in the subject memorandum, which had recorded the settlement terms arrived at in the past and even acted upon relating to all the existing or future disputes qua the subject property amongst the (signatories) family members despite absence of antecedent title to the concerned property.
Karnataka High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - P N Desai - Full Document

Dat Pethe And Anr. vs District Collector, Ernakulam And Ors. on 20 August, 1974

The counsel for the respondents has invited my attention to various decisions including Dhiyan Singh v. Jugal Kishore (AIR 1952 SC 145): B. C. and Co., (P) Ltd v. P. P. D. Gupta (AIR 1970 SC 426) and has submitted that as no specific representation has been made by the petitioners, they cannot be heard to say that the respondents are estopped by the principles of quasi estoppel or promissory estoppel. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that hut for assurance of subsidy the first petitioner would not have plunged himself into the venture. The facts show that it was for reasons beyond the control of the petitioners that they had to close down the industry, giving due notice to the 4th respondent, and leave Goa in July 1971 after disposing the machinery practically in Goa itself. Whatever that be. I do not think that I should pronounce anything on this aspect of the matter except express my view that the petitioners appear to have a strong case in support of their contention that the first petitioner started his industrial undertaking at Goa on the promise of subsidy made by the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, and that in doing so they acted to their detriment and prejudice, and the 4th respondent cannot go back on the promise given by its Chief Executive Officer. This question is also left open to be decided by the 4th respondent or the Central Government if the petitioners made representation in that behalf. The restricted reliefs sought for in this petition are granted, to the extent of restraining respondents 1 to 3 from proceeding with the steps for recovering the amount on the strength of the certificate stated to have been granted by the Collector of Goa, the 5th respondent.
Kerala High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Ramaswamy Pattamali And Ors. vs Lakshmi And Ors. on 30 November, 1961

it is often characterised as a rule of estoppel (See Dhiyan Singh v. Jugal Kishore, AIR 1952 SC 145) but it is not the estoppel which is a rule of evidence preventing a party from alleging and proving the truth of facts. Plaintiffs are not prevented from proving anything in the case. Having allowed the parties to prove every detail about the transaction we are only finding the legal consequences thereof; and the consequence is found to be that the arrangement or transfer made by the plaintiffs for consideration is binding on them and their interests in the properties though made before they became actually entitled thereto.
Kerala High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) vs Sansar Chand And Ors. on 16 July, 1959

On these premises, I had held that there was no breach or frustration of the contract as the Court below thought. Accordingly, it follows, as a logical corollary, that the plaintiff was not estopped from suing. Dhiyan Singh v. Jugal Kishore AIR 1952 SC 145, cited on behalf of the respondents, will not, under the circumstances, help them. Therein, Fazl Ali and Bose, JJ., held that :
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next