Introduction
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides for the concept of “Acquiescence” which means that a person is deemed to have waived his right to institute a suit or make a claim, if he has knowingly allowed the period of limitation to expire without taking any action.
What is Acquiescence?
Acquiescence is a concept that is different from estoppel, which means that a person is prevented from denying or contesting a fact because he has previously represented or acted in a way that is inconsistent with his later position. Acquiescence requires knowledge of the facts constituting the cause of action and an opportunity to take legal action.
Recent Case Laws
In recent years, there have been several cases where the concept of acquiescence has been applied to determine whether a person has waived his right to institute a suit or make a claim.
State Bank of India v. Abdul Rashid & Ors. (2013) 11 SCC 433: In this case, the Supreme Court held that the bank’s failure to take action against a loan defaulter for several years did not constitute acquiescence. The Court held that the bank’s silence did not amount to waiver of its right to recover the loan amount.
M/s. Sri Krishna Builders & Developers v. Smt. Padma Rani & Anr. (2016) 2 SCC 442: In this case, the Supreme Court held that the owner’s failure to take action against a tenant who had been occupying his property for several years did not constitute acquiescence. The Court held that the owner’s silence did not amount to waiver of his right to recover possession of the property.
Union of India v. M/s. SAIL (2017) 10 SCC 1: In this case, the Supreme Court held that the government’s failure to take action against a contractor who had been defaulting on his payments for several years did not constitute acquiescence. The Court held that the government’s silence did not amount to waiver of its right to recover the outstanding amount.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides for the concept of acquiescence, which means that a person is deemed to have waived his right to institute a suit or make a claim, if he has knowingly allowed the period of limitation to expire without taking any action. However, mere silence or inaction does not necessarily imply acquiescence. The concept of acquiescence is different from estoppel and requires knowledge of the facts constituting the cause of action and an opportunity to take legal action.
References
State Bank of India v. Abdul Rashid & Ors. (2013) 11 SCC 433
In this case, the State Bank of India (SBI) had lent a large amount to a borrower, Abdul Rashid, for the construction of a hotel. The borrower failed to repay the loan and instead, went into liquidation. The SBI filed a suit against the borrower and others claiming recovery of the outstanding loan amount.
The question before the court was whether the SBI had waived its right to recover the loan amount by failing to take action against the borrower for several years. The court held that the SBI’s silence did not constitute acquiescence. The court observed that the SBI had taken various steps to recover the loan amount, including filing a caveat in the borrower’s account, which showed that it was not willing to abandon its right to recover the loan.
The court also noted that the borrower had not taken any steps to discharge the loan or settle the outstanding amount, which suggested that he was aware of his liability and was not willing to pay. The court concluded that the SBI’s failure to take action against the borrower for several years did not constitute acquiescence, and therefore, it was entitled to recover the outstanding loan amount.
M/s. Sri Krishna Builders & Developers v. Smt. Padma Rani & Anr. (2016) 2 SCC 442
In this case, the respondent, Smt. Padma Rani, had rented a property from the appellant, M/s. Sri Krishna Builders & Developers. The respondent had failed to pay rent for several years and had instead, occupied the property as her own.
The question before the court was whether the appellant’s silence constituted acquiescence and whether it had waived its right to recover possession of the property. The court held that the appellant’s silence did not constitute acquiescence. The court observed that the respondent had not taken any steps to regularize her occupation or pay rent, which suggested that she was aware of her liability and was not willing to pay.
The court also noted that the appellant had taken various steps to recover possession of the property, including issuing notices and filing suits, which showed that it was not willing to abandon its right to recover possession. The court concluded that the appellant’s silence did not imply acquiescence, and therefore, it was entitled to recover possession of the property.
Union of India v. M/s. SAIL (2017) 10 SCC 1
In this case, the Union of India had entered into a contract with M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) for supply of steel products. The contract provided for payment of certain amounts by SAIL to the Union of India.
The question before the court was whether the Union of India’s silence constituted acquiescence and whether it had waived its right to recover payment from SAIL. The court held that the Union of India’s silence did not constitute acquiescence. The court observed that SAIL had failed to make payment despite numerous demands and notices from the Union of India.
The court also noted that SAIL had continued to enjoy benefits under the contract, including supply of steel products and payment for goods supplied, despite its failure to make payment. The court concluded that the Union of India’s silence did not imply acquiescence, and therefore, it was entitled to recover payment from SAIL.
In all three cases, the courts held that mere silence or inaction did not constitute acquiescence and that parties were entitled to take legal action to enforce their rights despite their failure to take action earlier.