The law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. The principle is based on the doctrine of election which postulates that no party can accept and reject the same instrument and that a person cannot say at one time that a transaction is valid and thereby obtain some advantage to which he could only be entitled on the footing that it is valid and then turn around and say that it is void for the purpose of securing some other advantage.
In the case of Zila Dastavej Lekhak Association v. State of U.P., (1996) 8 SCC 441, while considering the challenge to the validity of Rule 6(2) of the U.P. Document Writers License Rules, 1977 by the licencees, it was held as under:
“The members of the petitioner-Association, having become the licensees under the Rules, are bound thereby. Firstly, the petitioner – Association being consisting of the members who obtained license under the Rules, cannot challenge the Rules under which they come to operate. The very source under which they come to operate either survives or perishes under the Rules. They cannot challenge that part of the Rules which is unfavourable to them while at the same time, respecting the favourable part thereof since they have no independent right de hors the Rules. They cannot challenge the power of the Inspector General of Registration in making the rules regulating conditions of the document writers and the conditions under which they become eligibile to be document writers.”
In the cases of NCTE v. Shyam Babu Maheshwari, (2011) 2 SCC 412 and Krishna Kumar v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 207 and Union of India v. Kailas, (1998) 9 SCC 721, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that once an employee has opted for the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, his exercise of option was final and he is not entitled to change over to the pension scheme because the two schemes are entirely different. Janki Prasad v. State of U.P., 2017 (135) RD 525.
Section 24 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 clearly provides that a statutory instrument issued under a repealed enactment shall continue in force and be deemed to have been made or issued under the re-enacted provisions unless:
- The re-enacted provision expressly provides otherwise; or
- It is superseded by a statutory instrument made under the re-enacted provision.
The section further provides that the extent to which the statutory instrument under the repealed enactment shall continue is “so far as it is not inconsistent with the re-enacted provisions.”
In Chief Inspector of Mines v. Karam Chand Thapar, (1962) 1 SCR 9, the question that fell for consideration was whether or not the regulations framed under the Mines Act, 1923 continued in force after its repeal by the Mines Act, 1952. The accused was prosecuted for the violation of the regulations framed under the 1923 Act. The appellants applied for the quashing of the criminal proceedings on the ground that they were prosecuted for the breach of the regulations that had ceased to exist by the repeal of the Mines Act, 1923. The regulations were “as if enacted in this Act”, and therefore, repealed alongwith the 1923 Act. Harkesh Chand v. Krishan Gopal Mehta, (2017) 4 SCC 537.
“Fraud” is a knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his detriment. Fraud can be of different forms and hues. Its ingredients are an intention to deceive, use of unfair means, deliberated concealment of material facts, or abuse of position of confidence. The Black’s Law Dictionary defines “fraud” as a concealment or false representation through a statement or conduct that injures another who relies on it.
The issue of arbitrability of fraud has arisen on numerous occasions and there exist conflicting decisions of the Apex Court on this issue. While it has been held in Bharat Rasiklal Ashra v. Gautam Rasiklal Ashra, (2012) 2 SCC 144 that when fraud is of such a nature that it vitiates the arbitration agreement, it is for the court to decide on the validity of the arbitration agreement by determining the issue of fraud, there exists two parallel lines of judgments on the issue of whether an issue of fraud is arbitrable. In this context, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court while adjudicating on an application under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in N. Radhakrishnan v. Maestro Engineers, (2010) 1 SCC 72, held that an issue of fraud is not arbitrable. The decision was ostensibly based on the decision of the three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Abdul Kadir Shamsuddin Bubere v. Madhav Prabhakar Oak, AIR 1962 SC 406. However, the said three Judge Bench decision (which was based on the finding in Russel v. Russel, (1880) LR 14 Ch D 471) is only an authority for the proposition that a party against whom an allegation of fraud is made in a public forum, has a right to defend himself in that public forum.
A distinction has also been made by certain High Courts between a serious issue of fraud and a mere allegation of fraud and the former has been held to be not arbitrable. The Supreme Court in Meguin GmbH v. Nandan Petrochem Ltd., (2016) 10 SCC 422 in the context of an application filed under Section 11 has gone ahead and appointed an arbitrator even though issues of fraud were involved. A. Ayyasamy v. A. Parmasivam, (2016) 10 SCC 386.
Perusal of Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 would go to show that family in relation to landlord or tenant of a building would include: (1) spouse, (2) male lineal descendants, (3) such parents, grandparents, unmarried or widowed or divorced or judicially separated daughter or daughter of a male lineal descendant as may have been residing with the landlord. The definition further says “family” includes in relation to landlord, any female having a legal right of residence in that building.
The inclusive part of the definition, which is enacted only for the benefit of “female” in relation to the landlord, adds one or more category of person in addition to those specified in clauses (i) to (iii), namely, “any female having a legal right of residence in that building”.
A fortiori, any female, if she is having a legal right of residence in the building, is also included in the definition of “family” in relation to landlord regardless of the fact whether she is married or not. In other words, in order to claim the benefit of the expression “family”, a female must have a “legal right of residence” in the building. Such female would then be entitled to seek eviction of the tenant from such building for her need. Gulshera Khanam v. Aftab Ahmad, (2016) 9 SCC 414.
It is also a well settled position of law that in the absence of a registered instrument, the courts are not precluded from determining the factum of tenancy from the other evidence on record as well as the conduct of the parties. A three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Anthony v. K.C. Ittoop and Sons, (2000) 6 SCC 394, held as under:
“12……..A lease of immovable property is defined in Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act. A transfer of a right to enjoy a property in consideration of a price paid or promised to be rendered periodically or on specified occasions is the basic fabric for a valid lease. The provision says that such a transfer can be made expressly or by implication. Once there is such a transfer of right to enjoy the property, a lease stands created. What is mentioned in the three paragraphs of the first part of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act are only the different modes of how leases are created. The first paragraph has been extracted above and it deals with the mode of creating the particular kinds of leases mentioned therein. The third paragraph can be read alongwith the above as it contains a condition to be complied with if the parties choose to create a lease as per a registered instrument mentioned therein. All other leases, if created, necessarily fall within the ambit of the second paragraph.
When lease is a transfer of a right to enjoy the property and such transfer can be made expressly or by implication, the mere fact that an unregistered instrument came into existence would not stand in the way of the court to determine whether there was in fact a lease otherwise than through such deed.
Taking a different view would be contrary to the reality when parties clearly intended to create a lease though the document which they executed had not gone into the process of registration. That lacuna had affected the validity of the document, but what had happened between the parties in respect of the property became a reality. Non-registration of the document had caused only two consequences. One is that no lease exceeding one year was created. Second is that the instrument became useless so far as creation of the lease is concerned. Nonetheless the presumption that a lease not exceeding one year stood created by conduct of parties remains unrebutted.”
Thus, in the absence of registration of a document, what is deemed to be created is a month-to-month tenancy, the termination of which is governed by Section 106 of the Act. Park Street Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Dipak Kumar Singh, (2016) 9 SCC 268.
The three necessary ingredients for the application of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are (i) the Labour Court should have directed reinstatement of the workman, (ii) the employer should have preferred proceedings against such award in the High Court or in the Supreme Court; and (iii) the workman should not have been employed in any establishment during such period.
It is apparent that Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act was introduced for the purposes of mitigating hardship faced by the workman who had been reinstated but the reinstatement had been delayed on account of the contest laid by the employer before the High Court or the Supreme Court. It is also clear that Section 17-B of the Act, 1947 proposed to provide “payment of wages last drawn”. The object of introducing Section 17-B of the Act appears to ensure that a workman, in whose favour an award for reinstatement has been passed, is at least paid his last drawn wages. The purpose of introducing Section 17-B of the Act appears to be not to provide for a punitive measure or a disincentive for the employers to challenge the award passed by the Labour Court, but to mitigate the hardship faced by the workman on account of delays occasioned because of pendency of litigation before the High Courts and the Supreme Court. The Parliament in its wisdom, obviously thought it fit that the workman having succeeded in obtaining an award of reinstatement ought to be paid at least last wages that were drawn by him. It is also made a condition that for purposes of obtaining wages under Section 17-B of the Act, the employee should not be gainfully employed elsewhere. This object appears to be not to discourage an employer from assailing the award but to ensure that the workman who has prevailed before the Labour Court does not suffer for want of subsistence allowance for his sustenance. Management Committee v. Presiding Officer, 2016 (150) FLR 518.
In Provash Chandra Dalui v. Biswanath Banerjee, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 487, the Hon’ble Apex Court drew the distinction between “extension” and “renewal”. It was held thus:
“a distinction between “extension” and “renewal” is chiefly that in the case of renewal, a new lease is required while in the case of extension, the same lease continues in force during additional period by the performance of stipulated act. In other words, the word “extension” when used in its proper and usual sense in connection with a lease, means prolongation of the lease.”
It is settled law that grant of renewal is a fresh grant though it breathes life into the operation of the previous lease or licence granted as per existing appropriate provisions of the Act, rules or orders or acts intra vires or as per the law in operation as on the date of renewal. State of Gujarat v. Nirmalben S. Mehta, (2016) 9 SCC 240.