Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.07 seconds)
Arce Polymers Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S Alphine Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. on 3 December, 2021 cites

Commissioner Of Customs, Mumbai vs M/S. Virgo Steels, Bombay & Anr on 4 April, 2002

15. The question of waiver of mandatory requirement of a statute was considered by this Court in depth in Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v. Virgo Steels, Bombay and Another,4 by referring to a catena of judgments beginning from the judgment of the Privy 4 (2002) 4 SCC 316 Civil Appeal a/o. of SLP (C) No. 5051 of 2020 & Anr. Page 19 of 28 Council in AL.AR. Vellayan Chettiar (Decd.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 49 - Full Document

Raghbir Singh Gill vs Gurcharan Singh Tohra & Ors on 9 May, 1980

Government of the Province of Madras, Through the Collector of Ramnad at Madura, and Another5 wherein it was held that though notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is mandatory, the suit would not be bad if the non-issuance of notice is waived by the party for whose benefit the provision has been enacted. Similarly, in S. Raghbir Singh Gill v. S. Gurcharan Singh Tohra and Others,6 the argument that the requirement of Section 94 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 cannot be waived was rejected observing that a privilege conferred or a right created by a statute, if it is solely for the benefit of a party, the said party can waive it. However, where a provision enacted is founded on public policy, the courts would be slow to apply the doctrine of waiver. The doctrine applies in the first situation as the right to waive inheres in the concept of personal privilege and right.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 108 - D A Desai - Full Document

Bank Of India & Ors vs O.P. Swarnakar Etc on 17 December, 2002

Judge and Others.8 In Bank of India and Others v. O.P. Swarnakar and Others,9 and in Shri Lachoo Mal v. Shri Radhey 5 AIR 1947 PC 197 6 (1980) Supp SCC 53 7 (1994) 4 SCC 422 8 (1998) 1 SCC 732 9 (2003) 2 SCC 721 Civil Appeal a/o. of SLP (C) No. 5051 of 2020 & Anr. Page 20 of 28 Shyam,10 this Court elucidated the general principle that everyone has a right to waive and to agree to renounce an advantage of law or rule made solely for the benefit and protection of the person in private capacity. If a party gives up the advantage that could be taken of a particular position in law, it cannot later be permitted to change and turn around so as to avail of that advantage. However, this rule will not apply when there is a prohibition against contracting out of the statute, which prohibition would have its consequences or in case the waiver would be contrary to public policy. Further, a person cannot waive a right of a third person.
Supreme Court of India Cites 47 - Cited by 287 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Lachoo Mal vs Radhey Shyam on 10 February, 1971

Judge and Others.8 In Bank of India and Others v. O.P. Swarnakar and Others,9 and in Shri Lachoo Mal v. Shri Radhey 5 AIR 1947 PC 197 6 (1980) Supp SCC 53 7 (1994) 4 SCC 422 8 (1998) 1 SCC 732 9 (2003) 2 SCC 721 Civil Appeal a/o. of SLP (C) No. 5051 of 2020 & Anr. Page 20 of 28 Shyam,10 this Court elucidated the general principle that everyone has a right to waive and to agree to renounce an advantage of law or rule made solely for the benefit and protection of the person in private capacity. If a party gives up the advantage that could be taken of a particular position in law, it cannot later be permitted to change and turn around so as to avail of that advantage. However, this rule will not apply when there is a prohibition against contracting out of the statute, which prohibition would have its consequences or in case the waiver would be contrary to public policy. Further, a person cannot waive a right of a third person.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 100 - A N Grover - Full Document

Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 13 September, 2018

16. This principle has been subsequently followed in Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others,11 to hold that waiver is abandonment of a right which normally everybody is at liberty to waive. Waiver is nothing unless it amounts to release, albeit it can be adduced from acquiescence or may be implied. The essence of waiver is an estoppel and they are questions of conduct and, therefore, necessarily determined on the facts of each case. As a rule and judicial policy, the courts of law do not allow a litigant to take inconsistent position to gain advantage through the aid of judicial proceedings.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 4 - Cited by 12 - M B Lokur - Full Document
1   2 Next