Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.63 seconds)Section 4 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 42 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Dawsons Bank Limited vs Nippon Menkwa Kabushiki Kaisha (Japan ... on 21 February, 1935
―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.
Associated Hotels Of India Ltd., Delhi vs S. B. Sardar Ranjit Singh on 7 December, 1967
―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.
Madamsetty Satyanarayana vs G. Yellogi Rao And Two Others on 24 November, 1964
―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.
State Of Punjab vs Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors.Etc on 7 December, 2011
Waiver, whether express or implied, necessarily requires ―an
intentional act with knowledge.‖13 Even more emphatic is the
following exposition, to be found in State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal
Singh Bhullar14 (in para 41 of the report):