Skip to main content

Neither consideration nor agreement is necessary to constitute waiver of rights

In Tusar Kanti Basu Chowdhury v. Nil Kamal Basu Chowdhury, the petitioner filed a case under Section 8 of West Bengal Land Reforms Act 1995, for pre-emption in respect of land which was transferred in favour of the opposite party (OP) by the predecessor-in-interest under a registered sale deed. Petitioner sought pre-emption of the land in question on the ground of adjoining ownership. The application for pre-emption was contested by the OP contending that the petitioner had waived his right, if any, by becoming an attesting witness to the above-mentioned registered sale deed. The application for pre-emption was allowed by the trial court. However, the Additional District Judge reversed the order of the trial court. Aggrieved thus, the petitioner was before the High Court in revision.

The Calcutta High Court perused the record and found that the petitioner was indeed the attesting witness in the registered deed of sale of the land in question in favour of the OP. The Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Jagad Bandhu Chatterjee v. Nilima Rani, (1969), wherein it was held, under the Indian law neither consideration nor an agreement would be necessary to constitute waiver. A waiver amounts nothing more than an intention not to insist upon the right. The acquiescence in the sale by any positive act amounting to relinquishment of pre-emptive right have the effect of forfeiture of such a right. The High Court was of the opinion that by being an attesting witness to the sale deed, the petitioner by his act and conduct acquiesced to the sale of land sought to be pre-empted. Such an act impliedly amounted to relinquishment of pre-emptive rights and thus the petitioner had waived his right. In such circumstances, the High Court found no irregularity with the order impugned. Therefore, the revision was dismissed. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more