Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Landmark Case for Approbate and Reprobate PrincipleThe principle of approbate and reprobate is a fundamental doctrine of equity rooted in common law, borrowed from Scots law. It emphasizes that a party cannot accept benefits from a transaction while simultaneously denying or challenging its validity. The doctrine is closely linked to the principle of election and estoppel, preventing a person from blow hot-blow cold or fast and loose ["2025 0 Supreme(Ori) 571"].
Main Points and Insights
Several judgments reinforce that once a party elects to treat an act as lawful or beneficial, they cannot later treat it as wrongful or invalid ["
Goyal Energy & Steel Pvt. Ltd. VS Chairman cum Managing Director - Consumer
"], ["Goyal Energy & Steel Private Limited vs Chairman cum Managing Director The Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Consumer National
"].Analysis and ConclusionThe landmark case exemplifying the application of the approbate and reprobate principle is the Gosain case (R. N. Gosain v. Yashpal Dhir, AIR 1993 SC 352). The Supreme Court explicitly held: Law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate ["2025 0 Supreme(Ori) 571"]. This case is often cited as a leading authority in Indian jurisprudence establishing the doctrine's core principles. It underscores that a person cannot accept the benefits of a transaction while simultaneously denying its validity, ensuring consistency and fairness in legal conduct.
References:- ["2025 0 Supreme(Ori) 571"] (Gosain case, SC)- ["2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 1411"] (Elucidation by N. Murugesan, SCC 2022)- ["2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 2334"] (Explained in context of Scots law and Indian law)- ["M/S. VIVEK TRADERS vs NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & 2 ORS. - Consumer National"] (Principle reiterated in Indian courts)- ["1978 0 Supreme(Ker) 284"], ["2018 0 Supreme(HP) 2179"], ["INDHHC010138142015"] (Various judicial references reinforcing the doctrine)
In the complex world of legal disputes, consistency is key. Imagine a party reaping the benefits of a contract or decision, only to later challenge its validity when it suits them. This is where the principle steps in—a doctrine rooted in equity that bars such flip-flopping, often described as . But what if someone asks: Get me a landmark case for the principle? This blog dives deep into the authoritative precedent, , while weaving in broader applications. Whether you're a lawyer, business owner, or curious reader, understanding this principle can safeguard against unfair legal maneuvers.
Note: This post provides general information based on case law and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for specific situations.
The doctrine of prohibits a person from accepting benefits under a legal instrument or course of conduct while simultaneously repudiating its liabilities. It is a form of , positioned between by record and in pais ( by conduct).
Rooted in equity, it mirrors the , which forbids accepting and rejecting the same benefit simultaneously.
As one source aptly states: The principle behind the is inbuilt in the concept of . Once again, it is a principle of equity coming under the contours of common law. 2023 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 2186
In essence:- A party cannot approbate (approve and accept benefits) and reprobate (disapprove and reject liabilities) the same transaction.- It applies when conduct is inconsistent, making it unconscionable to resile from prior actions.
- Law does not permit a person to both . 2023 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 2186
This principle ensures fairness in commercial transactions, elections, and disputes, preventing opportunistic behavior.
The in explicitly discussed and established this doctrine as a clear precedent. The court emphasized that a party cannot accept benefits under a course of conduct while denying its validity.
In a pivotal quote, the court referenced 16 Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn) para 1507:
Approbation and reprobation. On the principle that a person may not , a species of has arisen which seems to be intermediate between by record and in pais. The principle that a person may not expresses two propositions: (1) that the person in question, having a choice between two courses of conduct, is to be treated as having made an election from which he cannot resile; and (2) that he will not be regarded, in general at any rate, as having so elected unless he has taken a benefit under or arising out of the course of conduct which he has first pursued and with which his subsequent conduct is inconsistent.
This case is landmark because it articulates the doctrine's scope comprehensively, applying it to prevent parties from . Once a benefit is accepted or conduct pursued, the party is estopped from later denial.
The Malaysian 's reasoning reinforces that allowing resiling would be unconscionable and unjust, serving as a legal safeguard against inconsistency.
Key elements from the judgment:- Election by Conduct: Choice between courses leads to irrevocable election if benefits are taken.- Mechanism: Prevents subsequent inconsistent actions.- Commercial Relevance: Vital in contracts where parties accept gains then challenge terms.
This precedent's significance lies in its clarity for transactions, guiding courts on when to invoke the doctrine.
The principle extends beyond Malaysia, prominently in Indian jurisprudence. For instance:- In a case, it was held: To do so would be to the same act. 2023 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 2186- A ruling stated: The principle of '' has been de- in it... Law does not permit a person to both .
In service disputes, like a Tamil Nadu case under the : Doctrine of would get attracted. Thus, a petitioner, who is the beneficiary, cannot turn-round and question the same when it comes to seniority. 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 2200
Recruitment challenges also invoke it: Principle of will therefore apply on the petitioners. Now after having participated in this interview... they cannot turn around and challenge the said answer key. 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 3043
Election disputes illustrate: A person is not permitted to take advantage of the situation so long as it suits his interest and thereafter turn around and make a grievance about the same. 2019 0 Supreme(Bom) 495
Even in trademarks: The principle that the Defendant cannot is well settled. 2019 0 Supreme(Del) 1273
These examples show the doctrine's versatility across elections, services, consumer law, and IP, consistently barring inconsistent stances after benefiting.
The doctrine typically applies only when:- A clear benefit is accepted.- Subsequent conduct is inconsistent.
It may not hold if no benefit was taken or inconsistency is absent. For example, in a tenancy case: Even the equitable principle of '' cannot be applied. [S. Murugadoss VS State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government, Home [Courts-I] Department - 2018 Supreme(Mad) 1885](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02100129204)
Courts assess on facts; mere participation without benefit might not trigger it. 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 3043
This principle upholds justice by curbing opportunism. For tailored advice, seek professional counsel.
References:-
: Core landmark case discussion.-
,
: Doctrine foundations.- Additional Indian sources as cited. #ApprobateReprobate #LandmarkCase #EstoppelPrinciple
The principle behind the doctrine of election is inbuilt in the concept of approbate and reprobate. Once again, it is a principle of equity coming under the contours of common law. ... Gosain case, SCC pp. 687-88, para 10) ‘10. Law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. ... That is to approbate and reprobate the transaction.’ ... To do so would be to approbate and reprobate the ....
The principle behind the doctrine of election is inbuilt in the concept of approbate and reprobate. Once again, it is a principle of equity coming under the contours of common law. ... N.Murugesan and others, (2022) 2 SCC 25, elucidating the principle of approbate and reprobate, has succinctly held as follows:- "Approbate and reprobate 26. ... and reprobate. ... and rep....
The principle behind the doctrine of election is inbuilt in the concept of approbate and reprobate. Once again, it is a principle of equity coming under the contours of common law. ... That is to approbate and reprobate the transaction.' ... Murugesan ; (2022) 2 SCC 25 has explained concept and principle of approbate and reprobate. The relevant extracts read as: "Approbate and reprobate 26. Thes....
The principle behind the doctrine of election is inbuilt in the concept of approbate and reprobate. Once again, it is a principle of equity coming under the contours of common law. ... That is to approbate and reprobate the transaction”. ... To do so would be to approbate and reprobate the same act”. ... Law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. ... Approbate and repr....
That is to approbate and reprobate the transaction. ... The doctrine of “approbate and reprobate” is only a species of estoppel, it applied only to the conduct of parties. As in the case of estoppel it cannot operate against the provisions of a statute. Law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. ... According to us, in such judgment this Court has considered the issue of approbate and reprobate. ... A plaintiff is....
In view of the aforesaid exposition of law, the question now arises is whether the principle of “approbate and reprobate” could have been applied to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The answer obviously is in negative. ... “approbate and reprobate” could have been applied to the facts of the instant case. 19. ... Law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. ... The phrase “approbate....
The principle of “approbate and reprobate” has been de- in it. ... Law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. ... That is to approbate and reprobate the transaction".
Equitable doctrine of election or law of approbate and reprobate which we derive from the English law is derived on a principle which is old, basic and wide. ... "He may not approbate and reprobate." Qui Sentit commodum sentire debet et onus. ... That, my Lords, is only an illustration of a difference in the law of succession, and therefore of extending and applying the principle of approbate and reprobate to that particular; but nothing of this impa....
Law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. ... Law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. ... The doctrine of “approbate and reprobate” is only a species of estoppel, it implies only to the conduct of parties. As in the case of estoppel it cannot operate against the provisions of a statute. (Vide CIT v. V. MR. P. Firm Muar [CIT v. V. MR. P. ... A person cannot approbate and reprobate or accept a....
The principle behind the doctrine of election is inbuilt in the concept of approbate and reprobate. Once again, it is a principle of equity coming under the contours of common law. ... That is to approbate and reprobate the transaction”. ... Approbate and reprobate 15. A party cannot be permitted to “blow hot-blow cold”, “fast and loose” or “approbate and reprobate”. ... Law does not permit a person to both #HL_STA....
Even before us, this issue has not been raised in the affidavit filed but raised such a plea only at the time of argument and followed by the written argument. Doctrine of approbate and reprobate would get attracted. Thus, a petitioner, who is the beneficiary, cannot turn-round and question the same when it comes to seniority. The constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Act 45 of 1994 is also pending before the Apex Court.
Principle of approbate and reprobate will therefore apply on the petitioners. Now after having participated in this interview and having been placed in the waiting list, they cannot turn around and challenge the said answer key merely on the basis that it has been placed on the website of RPSC in the year 2019.
A person is not permitted to take advantage of the situation so long as it suits his interest and thereafter turn around and make a grievance about the same at a subsequent stage when the consequence becomes unfavourable. 9. The principle of approbate and reprobate is a well recognised principle in equity. The conduct of such person estops him from making a grievance in respect of the invalid action in respect of which no grievance was made earlier despite having an opportunity to raise such grievance.
The principle that the Defendant cannot approbate and reprobate is well settled. In Neon Laboratories v. Thermis Medicare Ltd., (2014) 60 PTC 621 (Bom) it was held that: "21. The issue of whether a defendant can take such a plea of a mark or a prominent feature of a mark being common to the trade when the defendant has himself applied for registration is no longer res integra: the second action defeats the first argument. This view was, however, reversed by the Division Bench in Himalaya Drug Co. v. SBL Ltd., (2012) 194 DLT 536 (DB).
Taking time to vacate is appealing to the court to protect him so that he may make arrangements in the meantime. At the worst the intention might be to gain time to approach the higher court. Even the equitable principle of “approbate and reprobate” cannot be applied.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
