Estoppel

  1. After filing the affidavit in the High Court accepting the correctness of the award the appellant was not competent to pursue the matter any further — A party jis estopped by his conduct in the proceedings by taking a specific position — Appeal dismissed on the ground that appellant is estopped from changing his stand. Muhammad Sharif  v. Muhammad Manzoor and others 1993 SCR 92 (A & B)
  2. When a party having been unsuccessful in his attempt to secure a favourable order, it cannot be allowed to turn round and say that functionary did not have authority to regularise encroachment. Khalid Mahmood v. Abdul Majid Butt & 4 others 1998 SCR 38 (B)
  3. The estoppel would be created only if the representation is made regarding an existing fact and not a fact which was to come into existence in future. Azad Govt. v. Haji Abdur Rashid and 3 others 1999 SCR 345 (C)
  4. Estoppel applies when one party makes a representation and the other acts upon it — No such situation was brought to the notice of Court — An agreement which restricts a person from enforcing a right to move a Court of law is void. Habibullah Gannaie v. Wajahat Rashid Baig and 3 others 1999 SCR 429 (D)
  5. Appellant is estopped to challenge the point on which he failed to succeed in the earlier proceedings. Ghulam Nabi  v. Noor Ahmed and 12 others 2002 SCR 550 (A)
  6. The petitioner moved an application for appointment of Commission and in alternative for spot inspection on 4.12.1983, but after sometime on 28.12.1983 the same was withdrawn — Therefore he is estopped to raise this objection again before this Court. Ghulam Murtaza v. Qalam Din 2003 SCR 172 (A)
  7. No estoppel can be pleaded against the provisions of law. Mirpur Development Authority v. Muhammad Hanif & 23 others 2005 SCR 44 (C)
  8. There is no estoppel against law. Shahzad Abdul Hussain v. Chief Conservator of Forests & 5 others 2008 SCR 512 (B)
  9. Evacuee property — false declaration and affidavit — effect of — to obtain property rights transfer order — the respondent’s own affidavit and declaration form which is also solemnly affirmed, this piece of land is not allotted to him. According to the celebrated principle of law, he is estopped by his own conduct and now he cannot claim the allotment of the land. Azad Govt. & others v. Ghulam Nabi Shah 2015 SCR 816 (F)
  10. Acquiescence and Estoppel are two recognised grounds in presence of which jurisdiction based on equity cannot be exercised — Writ jurisdiction of the High Court is equitable in nature and no relief is granted to a litigant if he himself is instrumental in the making of an order or if he acquiesces in it — He cannot be allowed to turn round and challenge it — Equitable jurisdiction cannot be exercised in favour of a litigant with objectionable conduct. Abdul Qadir v. Abdul Karim and 4 others 2000 SCR 97 (E)
  11. Acquiescence and estoppel are two recognized modes on the basis of which equitable relief by way of writ cannot be granted.  Azad Govt. & 3 others v. Mrs. Jamshed Naqvi & 2 others 2014 SCR 13 (B) 2000 SCR 97 rel.
  12. Appellant applied for the post, participated in the test and interview but could not qualify — After failing, he challenged the process of selection — Held: appellant has acquiesced and estopped by conduct from challenging the process of selection. Fatima Bibi versus Najma Parveen & others 2016 SCR 15 (A)
  13. Writ — If a person accepts the conditions and later on, after complying the order turns round by claiming that the order be given effect retrospectively, such relief cannot be granted in writ jurisdiction — writ petition is not maintainable. Azad Govt. & 2 others v. Sardar Muhammad Rafique  & 6 others 2016 SCR 655 (A) 2000 SCR 97 & 2014 SCR 13 rel.
  14. — time-scale policy was formulated after negotiation with the representatives of the civil servants and if they ever raised plea for entitlement of premature increment and other benefits then such benefits might have been the part of the time-scale policy. Held: thus, now they cannot be allowed to claim premature increment and other benefits which relates to the regular promotion as at the time of formation of the policy all such claimed benefits were opened to be demanded. Prof. Malik Arshad  Aziz & others v. Finance Department & others 2017 SCR 559 (H)
  15. —a person who while accepting the conditions of notification assumed the charge of the office subsequently, cannot turn around and claim relief in negation of such condition. Zulfiqar Azam v. Azad Government & others 2017 SCR 697 (A)  2014 SCR 258 rel.
  16. —No  one  can  be  allowed  to  blow  hot  and  cold—-one cannot be allowed to take summersault—-the appellant at one hand stated that at the relevant time, no law regarding the sales tax was in existence in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, whereas, on the other hand itself filed the appeal before the High Court by invoking the provisions of section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, as is apparent from the memo of appeal. Thus, the stance taken by the appellant is self-contradictory and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has rightly argued that the appellant cannot take summersault or nobody can be allowed to take hot and cold in one and the same breath. AJ&K University vs Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal 2018 SCR 559 (C)
  17. —plaintiff being participant of illegal banking business of the Co-operative society—estopped to file suit for recovery—suit not maintainable— as except, plaintiff-respondent No.1, none of the effectees of the illegal banking business approached the Court and the suit filed by plaintiff-respondent No.1, was not maintainable as being participant in the illegal business, he is estopped by his own conduct to approach the Court. Ch. Ghazanfar & others vs Muhammad Maqsood Butt & others 2018 SCR 1063 (B)
  18. —Estoppel by conduct—the office bearers of UHS who were responsible for conducting the entry test have allowed the candidates provisionally despite of the fact that they were not in possession of the identity card. After allowing them to participate in the entry test—withholding of result was not justified at all. AJ&K Joint Admission vs Habiba Tawasar & others 2018 SCR 1214 (A)
  19. —execution of gift deed to respondent by appellant himself during litigation—application of principle of lis pendence–Argument: that the gift-deed has been executed during the pendency of a revision petition before Member Board of Revenue, therefore, the principle of lis pendens is attracted. It may be observed here that when it is proved that the appellant himself transferred the land by executing the gift-deed to the respondents then he is estopped by his own conduct to raise such objection.  Muhammad Aslam  v.Muhammad Farooq & others 2019 SCR 200 (C)
  20. —admission in MBBS against the seat reserved for overseas AJK Nationals—the petitioner, after going through the advertisement and accepting the conditions for admission applied against the overseas category, therefore, Held, after being declared as ineligible, she cannot turn around and challenge the conditions of advertisement on any ground whatsoever. Izzah Qureshi v. Azad Govt. & 9 others 2020 SCR 348 (A)
  21.  — if a person participates in the proceedings and fails to get the required result, he cannot turn around and challenge the process on arbitrary grounds. Faisal Hussain & 4 others v. Competent Authority & 13 others 2020 SCR 437 (C) 2013 SCR 134 & 2016 SCR 15 Ref
  22. — Principle of estoppel against estoppel— in case of one estoppel against another, the parties are set free and the Court has to decide what their original rights are; or the latter estoppel should prevail. Sardar Atta Ellahi Abbasi & 6 othersVersus Azad Govt. & 12 others 2021 SCR 171 (A)
  23. —Once the authority has issued an order subsequently it cannot turn around and take a different stance. Managing Director AKLASC & 3 others Versus Muhammad Rafique & 16 others 2021 SCR 485 (B) 2014 SCR 848 rel.
  24. —Temporary appointment was subject to termination at any time even without showing any cause—the appellant after accepting the terms and conditions of appointment cannot take a u-turn and file the writ petition. Shahbaz Shabir v. Chairman KDA Kotli & others 2022 SCR 582 (B)
  25. —Determination of inter-se seniority conditioned upon training and passing of examination of training— condition was incorporated in appointment order—appellants accepted the terms and conditions of service and not challenged at time of joining— appellant is estopped from challenging the same by their own conduct. The appellants accepted the appointment and notification and joined their service in pursuance of the notification and participating in the final passing out examination, they are estopped by their own conduct. Held: it is settled principle of law that if a person participates in the proceedings and fails to achieve the desired results, thereafter, he cannot turn around and challenge the same. Rashid Aftab &others v. AJ&K Govt. & others 2022 SCR 1598 (E) 2013 SCR 134 and 2016 SCR 15 rel.
  26.  — It is settled principle of law that there is not estoppel against law. University of AJK & others versus Khawaja Muhammad Arif & others 2023 SCR 850 (C) 2005 SCR 44, 2008 SCR 514 & 2013 SCR 929 ref.
  27. — concept and definition of — the catchphrase ‘estoppel’ is derived from French word ‘estoupe’ from which the English word estoppel emerged – a man’s own act or acceptance stoppeth or closeth of his mouth to allege or plead the truth — AKLASC & others vs Misdaq Hussain Kayani & others 2024 SCR 23 (C) (2003)2 SCC 355 ref.
error: Content is protected !!