Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.26 seconds)

Krishna Bahadur vs M/S Purna Theatre & Ors on 25 August, 2004

―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, (1934-35) 62 IA 100 : AIR 1935 PC 79, Basheshar Nath v. CIT, AIR 1959 SC 149, Mademsetty Satyanarayana v. G. Yelloji Rao, AIR 1965 SC 1405, Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. S.B. Sardar Ranjit Singh, AIR 1968 SC 933, Jaswantsingh Mathurasingh v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 5, Sikkim Subba Associates v. State of Sikkim, (2001) 5 SCC 629 : AIR 2001 SC 2062 and Krishna Bahadur v. Purna Theatre, (2004) 8 SCC 229 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 1086 : AIR 2004 SC 4282.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 158 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Joginder Singh Sodhi vs Amar Kaur on 8 October, 2004

)‖ ―Waiver‖, held Joginder Singh Sodhi v. Amar Kaur15, ―is a question of fact which must be expressly pleaded and clearly proved.‖ To the 12 AIR 1968 SC 933 13 Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of U.P, AIR 1979 SC 621 : (1979) 2 SCC 409 14 (2011) 14 SCC 770 15 JT 2004 (9) SC 100 : (2005) 1 SCC 31 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 33/2020 Page 20 of 24 Signing Date:25.08.2020 10:03:26 same effect, as the above decisions, is A.P.S.R.T.C. v. S. Jayaram16.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 100 - Full Document
1