Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.46 seconds)Section 65 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
G. Sarana vs University Of Lucknow & Ors on 28 July, 1976
The application of principles of estoppel, waiver
and acquiescence has been considered by us in many
cases, one of them being G. Sarana (Dr.) v. University
of Lucknow [(1976) 3 SCC 585 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 474]
...."
Om Prakash Shukla vs Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors on 18 March, 1986
In Om Prakash Sukla v. Akhilesh Kumar
Sukla, AIR 1986 SC 1043, the apex Court was pleased to
hold that when the petitioner therein appeared at the
examination without protest and when he found that he
would not succeed in the examination he filed a petition
challenging the said examination, the High Court should
not have granted any relief to such a petitioner.
Madan Lal & Ors vs The State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Ors on 6 February, 1995
In Madan Lal and others v. State of Jammu
and Kashmir and others, AIR 1995 SC 1088, the apex
Court held that if a candidate takes a calculated chance
Page 28 of 40
and appears at the interview, then only because the result
of the interview is not palatable to him he cannot turn
round and subsequently contend that the process of
interview was unfair or Selection Committee was not
properly constituted.
P.S.Gopinathan vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 9 May, 2008
In P.S. Gopinathan v. State of Kerala [(2008) 7
SCC 70 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 225] this Court relying
on the above principle held thus: (SCC p. 84, para 44)
"44. ... Apart from the fact that the appellant
accepted his posting orders without any demur in that
capacity, his subsequent order of appointment dated
Page 29 of 40
15-7-1992 issued by the Governor had not been
challenged by the appellant. Once he chose to join the
mainstream on the basis of option given to him, he
cannot turn back and challenge the conditions. He
could have opted not to join at all but he did not do
so. Now it does not lie in his mouth to clamour
regarding the cut-off date or for that matter any other
condition. The High Court, therefore, in our opinion,
rightly held that the appellant is estopped and
precluded from questioning the said order dated 14-1-
1992.
Union Of India & Others vs S. Vinodh Kumar & Others on 18 September, 2007
In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar [(2007) 8
SCC 100 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 792] in SCC at para 18
it was held that: (SCC p. 107)
"18. ... It is also well settled that those
candidates who had taken part in the selection
process knowing fully well the procedure laid down
therein were not entitled to question the same."
K.H. Siraj vs High Court Of Kerala & Ors on 23 May, 2006
28. Besides, in K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala
[(2006) 6 SCC 395 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1345] in SCC
paras 72 and 74 it was held that the candidates who
participated in the interview with knowledge that for
selection they had to secure prescribed minimum
marks on being unsuccessful in interview could not
turn around and challenge that the said provision of
minimum marks was improper, said challenge is
liable to be dismissed on the ground of estoppel."
Jitendra Panchal vs Intelligence Officer, Ncb & Anr on 3 February, 2009
119. The apex Court in Jitendra Panchal v. Intelligence
Officer, NCB, (2009) 3 SCC 57: AIR 2009 SC 1938, where it
has been held the offences for which accused was tried and
convicted in foreign country and for which he is tried in
India are distinct and separate.