Bishundeo Narain And Another vs Seogeni Rai And Jagernath on 4 May, 1951
In the decision reported as 1951 SCR 548
Bishundeo Narain v. Seogeni Rai, in paras 27 and 28, it was
held as under :-
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.21 seconds)New Bihar Biri Leaves Co. & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 6 January, 1981
17. Having received the benefit under the agreement and
RFA(OS) No.31/2003 Page 9 of 13
having consistently received only 35% rent paid by New Bank
of India, the appellant cannot approbate and reprobate. The
Doctrine of approbate and reprobate is a species of estoppel,
where a party to a contract who allows to appropriate benefit
out of it would be estopped from repudiating the other part, as
held in the decision reported as 1964 AC 993 Kok Hoong v.
Leong Cheong Kweng Mines Ltd.: „a litigant may be shown to
have acted positively in the face of the Court, making an
election and procuring from it an order affecting others apart
from himself, in such circumstances the Court has no option
but to hold him to his conduct and refuse to start again on the
basis that he has abandoned.‟ Same is the ethos when the
maxim „qui approbat non eprobate‟, meaning one who
approbates cannot reprobate, was applied by the Supreme
Court in the decisions reported as 1981 (1) SCC 537 New Bihar
Biri Leaves Co. & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. and AIR 2004 SC
3582 UOI v. Krishan Lal Arneja.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 15 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
1