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…!
The principle that silence or inaction does not amount to acquiescence aligns with legal precedents emphasizing the importance of explicit protest or reservation to preserve rights ["REV. MSGR, PHILIP NJARALAKKATT MANAGER VS STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT - Kerala"], ["Rev. Msgr, Philip Njaralakkatt Manager, Mar Sleeva College of Nursing, Palai, Cherpunkal VS State of Kerala, Represented by its Chief Secretary to Government, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram - Kerala"].
Analysis and Conclusion: The consensus across the sources is that a protest or objection must be explicit and timely. Merely accepting benefits, costs, or amendments without protest does not amount to waiver or acquiescence, provided the party retains the right to challenge later. However, acceptance under protest or with reservation can preserve the right to contest the order or amendment. Therefore, a lack of protest does not amount to an acceptance of unilateral amendments or actions, and protest or reservation is crucial to safeguard rights against claims of waiver or estoppel ["ASP Traders VS State of Uttar Pradesh - Supreme Court"].
References:["ASP Traders VS State of Uttar Pradesh - Supreme Court"]["MOHAMMAD USMAN VS UNION OF INDIA (UOI) - Rajasthan"]["Mohammad Usman VS Union of India - Rajasthan"]["Amar Singh VS Perhlad - Punjab and Haryana"]["GENERAL MARKETING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED VS UNION OF INDIA - Delhi"]["Manoranjan Pattnaik VS State of Orissa - Orissa"]["REV. MSGR, PHILIP NJARALAKKATT MANAGER VS STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT - Kerala"]["Rev. Msgr, Philip Njaralakkatt Manager, Mar Sleeva College of Nursing, Palai, Cherpunkal VS State of Kerala, Represented by its Chief Secretary to Government, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram - Kerala"]
In the fast-paced world of contracts and business agreements, unilateral changes by one party can create confusion and disputes. Imagine a supplier suddenly alters payment terms without your consent, and you don't immediately object. Does your silence mean you've accepted the change? The legal question at the heart of this issue is: No protest to unilateral amendment does not amount to acquiescence.
This principle, rooted in Indian jurisprudence, protects parties from being bound by imposed changes through mere inaction. Drawing from Supreme Court decisions and key precedents, this post breaks down the doctrine of acquiescence, its limits, and practical steps to safeguard your rights. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Acquiescence refers to passive or implied consent, typically requiring knowledge of the act and conduct indicating acceptance [Jayanta Khaund VS Assam Power Distribution Company Limited [APDCL] - 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 85](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/01400033873). It's not just about staying quiet; courts look for affirmative behavior that suggests waiver of rights.
Key takeaway: Silence or inaction alone generally does not constitute acquiescence, particularly if the party has not waived its right to object or shown acceptance of the amendment [Jayanta Khaund VS Assam Power Distribution Company Limited [APDCL] - 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 85](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/01400033873) Rupanwita Panda VS State of Orissa - 2022 0 Supreme(Ori) 356.
No protest or objection to a unilateral amendment—made without the other party's consent—does not equate to acquiescence if the affected party explicitly or implicitly objects at the time or beforehand. This distinction is vital in preventing one-sided contract modifications.
These principles emphasize timely communication over passive silence.
In Prabhakar v. Sericulture Deptt.Rupanwita Panda VS State of Orissa - 2022 0 Supreme(Ori) 356, the Supreme Court ruled:
Acceptance of two cheques by the appellant and their encashment by it did not amount to acceptance of the offer contained in two letters of respondent... Protest and non-acceptance must be conveyed before cheques were encashed.
Here, encashment without prior protest could imply acceptance, but the Court stressed the need for explicit communication.
Similarly, in railway claims Inder Sain Mittal VS Housing Board Haryana - 2002 2 Supreme 64, the Court noted:
Protest and non-acceptance must be conveyed before cheques are encashed; otherwise, encashment is deemed acceptance.
In Gobinda Ramanuj Das Mohanta [Jayanta Khaund VS Assam Power Distribution Company Limited [APDCL] - 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 85](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/01400033873), the Supreme Court clarified:
Inactivity or silence alone does not amount to acquiescence unless there is conduct indicating acceptance.
Halsbury’s Laws of England, referenced in Indian cases Baini Prasad (D) Thr. LRs. VS Durga Devi - 2023 1 Supreme 267, reinforces that silence doesn't imply acceptance without waiver-indicating conduct.
In Mewa Singh v. Brahma NandFast Cool Services by Partners and others VS P. Shanthakumari - 2000 0 Supreme(Mad) 3, acceptance under protest was scrutinized:
Acceptance under protest, without clear objection, can be deemed acceptance if conduct indicates so.
While no protest typically avoids acquiescence, conduct matters. Exceptions arise when prolonged inaction or benefiting actions imply consent.
Acceptance under protest may estop challenges: In a civil procedure case Raj Rani VS Nisha Rani - 2018 Supreme(P&H) 2979, petitioners accepted costs under protest but were estopped from challenging the order allowing additional evidence. The court held: Once the petitioners have accepted the costs even though under protest, they are estopped from challenging the order.
Protest from the outset prevents waiver: In an arbitration dispute Sociedade Algodoeira Do Nordeste Brasileiro S. A VS Cotton Corporation of India Limited - 1992 Supreme(Bom) 410, the court found: The protest had been taken from the beginning and therefore, there was no acquiescence and waiver. Unilateral arbitration references were invalid without jurisdiction.
Auction bids under protest: Accepting a bid under protest didn't waive rights to challenge later if the process was flawed Alauli Anchal Boat Traffic Cooperative Society Ltd. , Phultora VS State of Bihar - 2016 4 Supreme 558. However, failure to challenge the auction decision upfront limited remedies.
Land acquisition delays: Prolonged silence on notifications led to acquiescence under J&K Land Acquisition Act Bashir Ahmad Bhat VS State of J & K - 2022 Supreme(J&K) 502. The petitioner's inaction reflected assent or accord, dismissing the writ.
Loan agreements and banking: Mere failure to protest terms doesn't bind borrowers unless novated by conduct SYNDICATE BANK, SAUNDATTI, BELGAUM DISTRICT VS MAHALAXMI GINNING FACTORY, SAUNDATTI - 2004 Supreme(Kar) 295. Mere failure to protest by the borrower is not acquiescence.
Commercial ventures: Unilateral principal payments accepted with protest don't waive interest claims Tantia Construction Co. Ltd. VS Union of India - 1998 Supreme(Cal) 16.
These cases illustrate: Contextual conduct trumps mere silence, but initial no-protest alone rarely suffices.
Consider government contracts Dhansar Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. VS Bharat Coking Coal Limited - 2014 Supreme(Jhk) 241, where a corrigendum clarified service tax reimbursement without altering terms—it was clarificatory, not unilateral change. In trademarks BEIERSDORF A. G. VS AJAY SUKHWANI - 2008 Supreme(Del) 1136, Mere silence or inaction does not amount to acquiescence unless compounded by factors like delay.
To avoid misinterpretation:- Protest explicitly and timely: Object in writing at the time of or before the unilateral act [Jayanta Khaund VS Assam Power Distribution Company Limited [APDCL] - 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 85](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/01400033873).- Document everything: Reserve rights even if partially complying (e.g., under protest).- Monitor conduct: Avoid actions implying acceptance, like full performance without reservation.- Seek mutual consent: Insist on bilateral amendments for enforceability DIGBOI CARBON PVT. LTD. vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 5667.
Businesses facing supplier or partner changes should act swiftly—delays may invite acquiescence claims.
Mere no protest to a unilateral amendment does not amount to acquiescence. Courts prioritize explicit objection and reject implied consent from silence alone [Jayanta Khaund VS Assam Power Distribution Company Limited [APDCL] - 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 85](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/01400033873) Rupanwita Panda VS State of Orissa - 2022 0 Supreme(Ori) 356. However, consistent conduct can tip the scales, as seen in arbitration, auctions, and land cases.
Key Takeaways:- Silence ≠ Acceptance.- Protest early to preserve challenges.- Conduct is king—avoid benefiting without reservation.
Stay vigilant in contracts. For tailored advice, consult legal experts. This overview draws from established precedents to empower informed decisions.
#Acquiescence #ContractLaw #LegalRights
Further, whatever be the effect of mere waiver, acquiescence or laches on the part of a person on his claim to equitable remedy to enforce his rights under an executory contract, it is quite clear, on the authorities, that mere waiver, acquiescence or laches which does not amount to an abandonment of ... All three enactments originate from the same constitutional amendment – 101st Amendment Act, 2016 – aimed at establishing a harmonized indirect tax structure under the philosophy of ‘O....
Even at the stage of rejoinder, the petitioner did not take the plea that the amount was accepted by him "under protest", nor he disclosed the circumstances in which and by whom he was forced to accept the refund of the sala price. ... by the petitioner without any demur or protest. ... by the plaintiff in the unilateral rescission of the contract by the defendant. ... The petitioner has not even alleged that he received the refund of the sale price "under protest" no....
Even at the stage of rejoinder, the petitioner did not take the plea that the amount was accepted by him "under protest", nor he disclosed the circumstances in which and by whom he was forced to accept the refund of the sale price. ... In the aforesaid case, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there was no question of acceptance of some benefit or acquiescence by the plaintiff in the unilateral rescission of the contract by the defendant. ... demur or protest. ... Th....
In the present case, the petitioner having accepted costs awarded in the order while allowing amendment of the plaint further mentioned that he was accepting the amount under protest. This was a unilateral act on the part of the petitioner. ... His non-acquiescence is only for showing that the order could be challenged at a subsequent stage as otherwise there can be hardly any purpose for raising a protest before receiving the payment." ... In that case the party accepted the costs und....
In all these communications protest was lodged against the unilateral amendment. The letter of December 8, 1973 particularly shows that the protest was alive and under active consideration. How could all this material evidence be avoided? ... The respondent corrected the error by an amendment of 25. 5. 71. This amendment was objected to by the claimant as unilateral amendment. ... Mere factum of continued supplies would not suffice,....
Significantly while the promotion was granted on 28.09.2020 the petitioner not only did not raise any objection immediately thereafter but also filed a petition for amendment incorporating such facts only on 01.08.2021 before this court after nearly 11 months of passing of the order of promotion. ... Assuming that the petitioner would not have been granted promotion had he raised any protest at that time, even then it was open to him to say so in writing immediately or shortly thereafter. ... Jawahar Mi....
said notices dated 03.06.2013 and 24.07.2014 by Respondent No.1 or inaction on the said two notices may not amount to acquiescence on the part of Respondent No.1. ... Hence, non-traversing the suggestion of R1 in the notice dated 15.12.2014 is meaningless and does not amount to acquiescence/consent on part of BF Infrastructure. 60. ... post amendment. ... The grounds clearly stated therein are that the appointment is unilateral and the same is #HL_ST....
However before parting with the judgment and taking cognizance of the fact that in case the petitioner has not received the amount of compensation assessed and payable for his said land in terms of the award in reference, the Collector concerned shall enquire and ensure that the award amount stands credited ... to seek any amendment of his writ petition all along, and expected this Court to deal with the legality and validity of the impugned notification No DCP/LAS-NHW/C-3/1740-43 dated 30.03.2010 of the respondent No 4 ....
In the present case, the petitioner having accepted costs awarded in the order while allowing amendment of the plaint further mentioned that he was accepting the amount under protest. This was a unilateral act on the part of the petitioner. ... The ratio of all these judgments is that if cost amount is accepted, the party accepting the cost amount is debarred from challenging the order. Even if cost amount is accepted under protest, even then the ord....
The Court thereafter considered the question of acquiescence and waiver and held that in this case the protest had been taken from the beginning and therefore, there was no acquiescence and waiver. ... The Court held that there could be no unilateral reference to Arbitration and that such a unilateral reference was without jurisdiction. ... It was held that this was not a defect which could be cured by appearance of the parties in the proceedings even without protest.....
It was contended that the appellant-society had accepted the bid only under protest and the Division Bench failed to consider the fact that the appellant-society had reserved its right to challenge the public auction Ghurandera Kilagarai Ghat by Circle Officer, Alauli and deposit of one third amount under protest does not amount to acquiescence and waiver of appellant's legal right. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-society Mr. Subhro Sanyal submitted that bid amount of Rs. 16,00,000/- for which the ghat was settled is arbitrary and is very much on the higher side than t....
It is in this context the Corrigendum/Amendment dated 2nd March, 2012 to clause in respect of Service Tax was issued clarifying that the Service Tax will be reimbursed only if paid through cash remittance or e-payment. In our considered opinion, the Corrigendum/ Amendment dated 2nd March, 2012 does not amount to unilateral alteration of the terms and conditions of the contract and is only clarificatory.
In Ramdevs case (supra), the Supreme Court has observed that acquiescence is a facit of delay, when a party allows the other to invade his right and spend money and the conduct of the party is such that it is inconsistent with the claim for exclusive rights for trademark, trade name. Lapse of time unless compounded with other factors is normally is not taken as a bar to grant of injunction. Mere silence or inaction does not amount to acquiescence. Lapse of time unless compounded with other factors is normally is not taken as a bar to grant of injunction. Action and conduct ....
Therefore mere failure to protest by the borrower is not acquiescence. Suffice it to observe that such issues shall have to be left open to be adjudicated upon in appropriate cases as and when actually arising for decision and we cannot venture into laying down law on such issues as do not arise for determination before us". It is not the case of the Bank that the terms of the contract in writing (Ex. P. 8) was altered by any fresh contract and such novation is acquiesced by the borrowers. Therefore plea of acquiescence is not available to the bank.
In that perspective also submission of Mr. Basu fails and since we are unable to record our concurrence therewith. It is a commercial venture and the Government must act in such a venture with proper spirit. The decision to pay the principal amount was only unilateral and if it is accepted with a protest, question of waiver of interest does not and cannot arise.
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
