Imp. Rulings - Waiver of statutory rights.
Index;
SCI (2026.07.13) in Union of India & Ors. vs Bali Ram [2026 INSC 689, Civil Appeal No.13783/2015]
NCLAT (2025.10.31) in ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. RP of Darjeeling Organic Tea Pvt. Ltd. [(2025) ibclaw.in 906 NCLAT, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1001 of 2024 & I.A. No. 3637 of 2024]
SCI (2023.09.21) Celir LLP Vs. Bafna Moto (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [Civil Appeal Nos. 5542 - 5543 of 2023, Neutral Citation 2023 INSC 838]
SCI (2021.12.03) Arce Polymers Pvt. Ltd. v. Alpine Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.[Civil Appeal No. 7372 OF 2021 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.. 5051 Of 2020)]
SCI (2004.08.25) Krishna Bahadur v. Purna Theatre [2004 INSE 478, 2004) 8 SCC 229, Civil Appeal no. 7251 of 2001]
-------------------------------------------------------------
1). SCI (2026.07.13) in Union of India & Ors. vs Bali Ram [2026 INSC 689, Civil Appeal No.13783/2015] held that;
The Supreme Court in multiple rulings has cautioned that in exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Courts must confine themselves to the pleadings and the prayer clauses; and granting relief beyond what is prayed for is not permissible in law. One may profitably refer to the decision in Bharat Amratlal Kothari v. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi in this regard.
Law is, again, well-settled that when a point is not traceable in the pleas set out either in a plaint or a written statement, findings rendered on such point by the court would be unsustainable as that would amount to an altogether new case being made out for the party. The underlying reason is that of fairness. The opponent must know the case he/it has to meet. He / it cannot be taken by surprise at the hearing. To grant unclaimed relief without putting him / it on notice would obviously result in violation of natural justice and, therefore, the court ought to desist from doing so.
waiver, in law, is an intentional relinquishment of a known right or advantage, benefit, claim or privilege by a person which, except for such waiver, he would have enjoyed.
To constitute waiver, what is required to be proved by the party raising the plea is that (i) a person (the other party to the lis against whom waiver is claimed) has a right; (ii) such person has clear knowledge of that right; and (iii) despite the knowledge (of an existing right), that person has voluntarily and consciously given up that right. Mere silence or inaction or delay to enforce the existing right does not constitute waiver, since there must be a clear conduct revealing that the right has been given up.
It is important to remember that waiver of a statutory right is generally disfavoured particularly when the statute is for public welfare or the waiver would be contrary to public policy.
[ Link Synopsis ]
-------------------------------------------------
2). NCLAT (2025.10.31) in ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. RP of Darjeeling Organic Tea Pvt. Ltd. [(2025) ibclaw.in 906 NCLAT, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1001 of 2024 & I.A. No. 3637 of 2024] held that;
The details of the fixed deposit were already provided to the RP. All fixed deposit contained the endorsement of lien in favour of the Bank. We thus are of the view that Bank has fully proved that it is secured financial creditor of the corporate debtor and RP was required to classify the appellant as secured financial creditor.
A right can be waived by the party for whose benefit certain requirements or conditions had been provided for by a statute subject to the condition that no public interest is involved therein. Whenever waiver is pleaded it is for the party pleading the same to show that an agreement waiving the right in consideration of some compromise came into being. Statutory right, however, may also be waived by his conduct.
------------------------------------------------
3). SCI (2023.09.21) In Celir LLP Vs. Bafna Moto (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [Civil Appeal Nos. 5542 - 5543 of 2023, Neutral Citation 2023 INSC 838] held that;
62. It is equally well settled that the rights created for the benefit of the borrower under the SARFAESI Act, can be waived. Waiver can be contractual or by express conduct in consideration of some compromise. However, a statutory right may also be waived by implied conduct, like, by wanting to take a chance of a favourable decision. The fact that the other side has acted on it, is sufficient consideration, as observed by this Court in Arce Polymers Pvt. Ltd. v. Alpine Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2022) 2 SCC 221, referred as under: -
“16. Waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a known right. Waiver applies when a party knows the material facts and is cognizant of the legal rights in that matter, and yet for some consideration consciously abandons the existing legal right, advantage, benefit, claim or privilege. Waiver can be contractual or by express conduct in consideration of some compromise. However, a statutory right may also be waived by implied conduct, like, by wanting to take a chance of a favourable decision. The fact that the other side has acted on it, is sufficient consideration.
17. It is correct that waiver being an intentional relinquishment is not to be inferred by mere failure to take auction, but the present case is of repeated positive acts post the notices under Sections 13(2) and (4) of the SARFAESI Act. Not only did the borrower not question or object to the auction of the Bank, but it by express and deliberate conduct had asked the Bank to compromise its position and alter the contractual terms. The borrower wrote repeated request letters for restructuring of loans, which prayers were considered by the Bank by giving indulgence, time and opportunities. The borrower, aware and conscious of its rights,chose to abandon the statutory claim and took its chance and even procured favourable decisions. Even if we are to assume that the borrower did not waive the remedy, its conduct had put the Bank in a position where they have lost time, and suffered on account of delay and laches, which aspects are material. Auction on the subject property was delayed by more than a year as at the behest of the borrower, the Bank gave them a long rope to regularise the account. To ignore the conduct of the borrower would not be reasonable to the Bank once third-party rights have been created. In this background, the principle of equitable estoppel as a rule of evidence bars the borrower from complaining of violation.” (Emphasis supplied)
[ Link Synopsis ]
-----------------------------------------------------
4.). SCI (2021.12.03) Arce Polymers Pvt. Ltd. v. Alpine Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.[Civil Appeal No. 7372 OF 2021 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.. 5051 Of 2020)] held that;
# 14. Waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a known right. Waiver applies when a party knows the material facts and is cognizant of the legal rights in that matter, and yet for some consideration consciously abandons the existing legal right, advantage, benefit, claim or privilege. Waiver can be contractual or by express conduct in consideration of some compromise. However, a statutory right may also be waived by implied conduct, like, by wanting to take a chance of a favourable decision. The fact that the other side has acted on it, is sufficient consideration. It is correct that waiver being an intentional relinquishment is not to be inferred by mere failure to take action, but the present case is of repeated positive acts post the notices under Sections 13(2) and (4) of the SARFAESI Act. Not only did the Borrower not question or object to the action of the Bank, but it by express and deliberate conduct had asked the Bank to compromise its position and alter the contractual terms. The Borrower wrote repeated request letters for restructuring of loans, which prayers were considered by the Bank by giving indulgence, time and opportunities. The Borrower, aware and conscious of its rights, chose to abandon the statutory claim and took its chance and even procured favourable decisions. Even if we are to assume that the Borrower did not waive the remedy, its conduct had put the Bank in a position where they have lost time, and suffered on account of delay and laches, which aspects are material. Action on the Subject Property was delayed by more than a year as at the behest of the Borrower, the Bank gave them a long rope to regularise the account. To ignore the conduct of the Borrower would not be reasonable to the Bank once third party rights have been created. In this background, the principle of equitable estoppel as a rule of evidence bars the Borrower from complaining of violation.
------------------------------------------------
5). SCI (2004.08.25) Krishna Bahadur v. Purna Theatre [2004 INSE 478, 2004) 8 SCC 229, Civil Appeal no. 7251 of 2001] held that;
# 9. The principle of waiver although is akin to the principle of estoppel; the difference between the two, however, is that whereas estoppel is not a cause of action; it is a rule of evidence; waiver is contractual and may constitute a cause of action; it is an agreement between the parties and a party fully knowing of its rights has agreed not to assert a right for a consideration.
# 10. A right can be waived by the party for whose benefit certain requirements or conditions had been provided for by a statute subject to the condition that no public interest is involved therein. Whenever waiver is pleaded it is for the party pleading the same to show that an agreement waiving the right in consideration of some compromise came into being. Statutory right, however, may also be waived by his conduct.”
------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment