Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Aprobate and Reprobate - The legal principles prohibit a party from simultaneously approbating (accepting) and reprobating (rejecting) the same position or transaction, as doing so violates the principles of estoppel, consistency, and fairness. Several judgments affirm that a person cannot blow hot and cold or take contradictory stands at different times, emphasizing that such conduct is not permissible under law. Notable references include Supreme Court decisions and case law such as Yashpal Dhir (AIR 1993 SC 352), Murugesan (2022), and Usha Balashaheb Swami. VARGHESE K. A vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala, NIMMITHI JEEVARATNAM vs RAPAKA VENKATA RATNAM - Andhra Pradesh, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited VS Office Of Electricity Ombudsman, Rajasthan - Rajasthan, SMT. SUJATA W/O. RAJASHEKHAR RAMANAGOUDAR Vs THE GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM - Karnataka, Manoj Luthra VS New India Assurance Co. - Punjab and Haryana, Sanhita Roy VS Indrani Basak - Calcutta.
Application in Legal and Administrative Contexts - The doctrine is applied across various legal contexts, including court proceedings, administrative orders, and contractual disputes. For instance, courts have held that defendants or parties cannot change their stance to gain undue advantage or to contradict earlier positions. This principle also extends to administrative decisions, where acceptance of certain terms without protest can estop the parties from later denying their acceptance or seeking inconsistent remedies. Devendra Kumar Joshi vs Comptroller & Auditor General - Central Information Commission, SRI. H. G. BASAVARAJAPPA vs SRI. D. SOMASHEKARAPPA @ D. SOMASHEKAR - Karnataka, NIMMITHI JEEVARATNAM vs RAPAKA VENKATA RATNAM - Andhra Pradesh, SAJAL DUTTA vs RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS - Calcutta.
Limitations and Exceptions - While the principle generally bars parties from approbating and reprobating, exceptions may arise depending on the context, such as in contractual negotiations or settlement processes where parties may change positions based on new circumstances or information. However, such conduct must be consistent with legal standards and not amount to bad faith or unfair advantage. M. S. Ramaiah City Residents Welfare VS Bangalore Development Authority - Karnataka, Ramaiah City Residents Welfare VS Bangalore Development Authority - Karnataka.
Analysis and Conclusion:The doctrine of approbate and reprobate underscores the importance of consistency and good faith in legal conduct. Parties are barred from taking contradictory positions to manipulate outcomes, as this contravenes principles of equity and estoppel. Courts consistently reinforce this doctrine to maintain integrity in legal and administrative proceedings, ensuring that parties cannot benefit from inconsistent claims or conduct. This principle serves as a safeguard against unfair practices and promotes truthful, coherent behavior in legal dealings.
In the complex world of law, consistency is king. Imagine accepting the benefits of a deal only to later challenge its validity—sounds unfair, right? This is where the doctrine of comes into play. Rooted in equity and estoppel, it prevents parties from by approving (approbating) a transaction and then rejecting (reprobating) it.
If you've ever wondered, What is ''?, this post breaks it down. Drawing from key legal documents and case insights, we'll explore its meaning, applications, exceptions, and why it matters in Indian jurisprudence. Note: This is general information, not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your specific situation.
The phrase originates from English Common Law and is firmly embedded in Indian law. It embodies the maxim —meaning one who approbates cannot reprobate. Simply put, a person who knowingly accepts benefits under a transaction cannot later question or reject it.
As explained in legal references, no one can . A person who accepts benefits with full knowledge is estopped from denying the transaction's validity. This doctrine is a species of , ensuring fairness and preventing inconsistent positions. Shyam Telelink Ltd. now Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd. VS - 2010 7 Supreme 244
Key characteristics include:- Approbate: Approving, accepting benefits, or acting as if a transaction/order is valid.- Reprobate: Later rejecting it or taking a contradictory stance.- Rooted in election and estoppel principles, promoting consistency. VS N. Murugesan Etc. - 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 600
The doctrine draws from equity, stating that a party taking advantage under an instrument granting benefits and imposing burdens cannot the benefits without the burdens. A person cannot or accept and reject the same instrument.
Courts emphasize it applies to conduct, not statutes. Once benefits are accepted or acted upon, the party is estopped from challenging validity, especially after gaining advantages. Shyam Telelink Ltd. now Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd. VS - 2010 7 Supreme 244 VS N. Murugesan Etc. - 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 600
For instance:- It prevents , a phrase courts use to describe inconsistent conduct.- Derived from Common Law, it's applicable via judicial precedents in India.
This principle appears across contracts, court orders, and administrative matters. Here are notable examples:
Pension and Benefits Disputes: In a ruling, was barred from approbating post-retirement benefits while reprobating pensionary ones under a compromise decree. Having paid benefits without protest, could not later contest terms. SMT. SUJATA W/O. RAJASHEKHAR RAMANAGOUDAR Vs THE GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM - Karnataka
Contractual Work Orders: A party referencing multiple work orders (including arbitration clauses) in notices and claims cannot later dispute only the arbitration term. This applicant cannot . UB Engineering Limited through Mr. Bir Bahadur Singh, S/o Ramji Singh VS Electrosteel Steel Limited - 2017 Supreme(Jhk) 362 - 2017 0 Supreme(Jhk) 362
Property and : Defendants giving undertakings to the post-decree were held liable for from an earlier date. The defendant cannot be permitted to .
Document Genuineness: After prior conduct, a party cannot shift positions. In such circumstances, now he cannot be allowed to .
Arbitration Awards: Plaintiffs cannot accept compromises then challenge procedural aspects like waiting periods. The plaintiff cannot be allowed to .
Negotiations and Discounts: Petitioners offering discounts cannot later reprobate reductions. The petitioner cannot at the same time. Man Industries (India) Ltd. VS - 2009 Supreme(Del) 705 - 2009 0 Supreme(Del) 705
Broader applications include cases like and Murugesan (2022), reinforcing no contradictory stands. VARGHESE K. A vs STATE OF KERALA - KeralaNIMMITHI JEEVARATNAM vs RAPAKA VENKATA RATNAM - Andhra Pradesh
In administrative contexts, acceptance without protest estops later challenges. Devendra Kumar Joshi vs Comptroller & Auditor General - SRI. H. G. BASAVARAJAPPA vs SRI. D. SOMASHEKARAPPA @ D. SOMASHEKAR - Karnataka
While powerful, the doctrine has boundaries:- Doesn't Override Statutes: It cannot operate against statutory provisions. VS N. Murugesan Etc. - 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 600- Conduct-Based: Applies to actions, not independent legal rights.- Contextual Exceptions: May not apply in negotiations with new information or settlements without bad faith. M. S. Ramaiah City Residents Welfare VS Bangalore Development Authority - KarnatakaRamaiah City Residents Welfare VS Bangalore Development Authority - Karnataka
Courts assess full knowledge, voluntariness, and fairness before invoking it.
In an era of complex contracts and litigation, upholds integrity. It deters opportunistic behavior, ensuring parties commit to positions after benefiting. For businesses, it's a reminder: accept terms fully or challenge early.
This analysis is based solely on referenced documents. Judicial outcomes vary by facts.
Understanding this doctrine empowers better legal navigation. Stay consistent to avoid pitfalls!
Word count: 1028. References compiled from provided sources.
#ApprobateAndReprobate, #LegalEstoppel, #IndianLaw
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that the challenge against Annexure-A3 order cannot be entertained now, since the petitioner cannot aprobate and reprobate.
Further, the respondent having confirmed the same, the CPIO cannot be compelled to create or aprobate/reprobate the claims of the applicant under the provisions of the RTI Act. In view of the above, no further action is warranted in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
and reprobate and contend that the petitioner was liable to pay stamp duty on the document and that he was not entitled to any exemption. ... itself, respondents and petitioner have mutually agreed that the sale consideration was flowing out of the compensation amount awarded in favour of the petitioner and since the respondents were parties to the said Sale Agreement containing the said recitals, the respondents would not be entitled to aprobate
6 wherein it is held that the defendant can take different stands at different times but cannot be permitted to aprobate and reprobate. He further places reliance on the decision of the apex court in the case of Usha Balashaheb Swami and Others Vs. ... The learned counsel for the respondent in support of his contention that the parties cannot approbate and reprobate relies on the decision in the case of Suzuki Parsarampuria Suitings Pvt. Lt....
Learned counsel for the petitioner-Discom further submits that the order of the EO is also liable to be set aside as the EO failed to consider the well recognized principles of ‘estoppel’, ‘acquiescence’, ‘delay & laches’ and ‘aprobate & reprobate’. ... Once it is established that respondent-customers have accepted the terms and conditions imposed upon them without any protest, the principles of ‘estoppel’, ‘acquiescence’, ‘delay & laches’ and ‘apr....
and reprobate and contend that only the post retirement benefits would be given and not the pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioners particularly when the terms of the by the aforesaid pension rules is concerned, having regard to the conduct of BSNL in giving effect to the terms and conditions of the compromise decree by paying post retirement benefits, BSNL would not be entitled to aprobate
Petitioner cannot be permitted to aprobate & reprobate as to the purpose of allotment of the subject site. This apart, pursuant to judgment dated 16.02.2017 in W.P.No.4257/2017, the respondent-BDA having considered petitioner's representation rejected it vide order dated 09.02.2018.
Petitioner cannot be permitted to aprobate and reprobate as to the purpose of allotment of the subject site. This apart, pursuant to judgment dtd. 16/2/2017 in W.P.No.4257/2017, the respondent-BDA having considered petitioner's representation rejected it vide order dtd. 9/2/2018.
That is to approbate and reprobate the transaction.' ... Law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. ... Approbate and reprobate 15. A party cannot be permitted to "blow hot-blow cold", "fast and loose" or "approbate and reprobate". ... Murugesan ; (2022) 2 SCC 25 has explained concept and principle of approbate and reprobate. The relevant extracts read as: "Approbate and rep....
The Hon’ble Apex Court was of the view that the defendant could not aprobate and reprobate. 18.
Now, conveniently dispute cannot be raised for only one term or one condition of aforesaid work orders, which is the arbitration clause. Even the Notice issued by the applicant under Section 21 of the Act of 1996 dated 17th June, 2015 (Annexure 8 to the Arbitration Application No. 14 of 2015) has several times and consistently referred to breach of work orders and the claim of the consideration is also under aforesaid seven work orders. (f)This applicant cannot aprobate and reprobate....
In my opinion, the defendant cannot be permitted to aprobate and reprobate. This undertaking is given in compliance to the order of the Supreme Court dated 13.2.2006 i.e. much after the period of three years had lapsed after the decree of the learned Single Judge of this Court. There is yet another reason why, the defendant is liable to pay mesne profit w.e.f. 1.2.1980 till date of delivery of possession. The defendants have given a categorical undertaking to the Supreme Cour....
In such circumstances, now he cannot be allowed to aprobate and reprobate. Therefore, the presumption of its genuineness is in favour of the plaintiffs.
In other words, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to aprobate and reprobate. So far waiting of 30 days by the court prior to making the award rule of the court is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that when all the parties were present and filed compromise and no objection was raised, there was no question of passing the award after 30 days arises. On these grounds, the learned counsel submitted that the appeal is liable to be dismissed with cost. In such view of the mat....
Thus, the petitioner cannot aprobate and reprobate at the same time. This is further extended to the fact that the petitioner itself suo moto realising the said reduction wrote a letter to the Respondent dated 5.6.09 and offered a discount and further negotiated uptil 4 %.
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
