Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.23 seconds)Section 19 in The Oudh Laws Act, 1876 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Oudh Laws Act, 1876 [Entire Act]
Section 115 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Mool Chand vs Ganga Sahai on 13 April, 1933
21) The High Court of Lahore has, in the case of Mool
Chand v. Ganga Jal, (1930) ILJ 11 Lahore (F.B) 258, while
elucidating the nature of right of pre-emption, made the
following observations:
Bishan Singh & Others vs Khazan Singh & Another on 20 May, 1958
The judgment
in Bishan Singh case preceded the same, where
different views, expressed in respect of this law of
pre-emption, have been set out, and thereafter the
position has been summarised. There is no purpose
in repeating the same, but, suffice to say that the
remedial action in respect of the right of pre-
Barasat Eye Hospital Thr. Its Rep. vs Kaustabh Mondal on 17 October, 2019
23) The Supreme Court has, in the case of Barasat Eye
Hospital and Ors. v. Kaustabh Mondal, (2019) 19 SCC 767,
described the nature of right of pre-emption in the following
manner:
Raghunath(D) By Lrs. vs Radha Mohan (D) Thr. Lrs. on 13 October, 2020
24) In Raghunath v. Radha Mohan and Ors., AIR 2020
SC 5026, it was reiterated that pre-emption is a weak right
CFA No.19/2001 Page 12 of 19
and once a plaintiff-pre-emptor chooses to waive his right of
pre-emption, he looses that right for ever and could not raise
the right in perpetuity every time there is a subsequent
transaction or sale.
Indira Bai vs Nand Kishore on 5 September, 1990
In fact, the Supreme Court has, in
the case of Indira Bai v. Nand Kishore, (1990) 4 SCC 668,
elaborately discussed the circumstances in which estoppel
can be put up as defence against the right of pre-emption. It
was a case under Rajasthan Pre-emption Act and the
Supreme Court while explaining the rule of estoppel
observed as under:
Shalimar Tar Products Ltd vs H.C. Sharma & Ors on 12 November, 1987
5. Exception, to this universal rule or its non-
availability, is not due to absence of any provision in
the Act excluding its operation but welfare of society
or social and general well-being. Protection was,
consequently, sought not on the rationale adopted by
the High Court that in absence of notice under Section
8 of the Act estoppel could not arise but under cover
of public policy. Reliance was placed on Shalimar Tar
Products v. H.C. Sharma, AIR 1988 SC 145, a decision
on waiver, and Equitable Life Assurance Society of the
United States v. Reed, 14 Appeal Cases 587, which
laid down that there could be no estoppel against
statute. Equi- ty, usually, follows law. Therefore, that
which is statutorily illegal and void cannot be enforced
by resorting to the rule of estoppel. Such extension of
rule may be against public policy. What then is the
nature of right conferred by Section 9 of the Act?