Sanjit Singh Salwan vs Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan 2025 INSC 988 - Estoppel In Law - Conduct Of Parties
Whether a plea of estoppel in law can be permitted to be raised by a party ignoring its conduct that resulted in the other party altering its position to its detriment in view of such conduct?
Estoppel In Law - Whether a plea of estoppel in law can be permitted to be raised by a party ignoring its conduct that resulted in the other party altering its position to its detriment in view of such conduct? In this case, the respondents initially filed a suit to restrain the appellants from interfering in the Trust’s school. The trial court dismissed the suit, but during appeal, both parties agreed to resolve their dispute through arbitration. The arbitrator’s award was accepted by both sides, and the appeal was disposed of as a consent decree based on this award-Later, the respondents challenged the validity of the arbitration award, arguing that such disputes were not arbitrable under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure - Allowing appeal, SC observed: On the doctrine of estoppel by conduct and election the respondents cannot be permitted to now raise a plea that the compromise deed based on the award dated 30.12.2022 was a nullity in view of the provisions of Section 92 of the Code - The issue of invalidity of the award, as a question of law, cannot be considered de hors the conduct of parties. (Para 18-19)
Case Info
Case Name and Neutral Citation
- Case Name: Sanjit Singh Salwan & Ors. v. Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan & Ors.
- Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 988
Coram (Judges)
- Coram: Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Judgment Date
- Date of Judgment: August 14, 2025
Caselaws and Citations Referred
The judgment refers to several Supreme Court decisions:
- Suzuki Parasrampuria Suitings Private Ltd. v. Official Liquidator of Mahendra Petrochemicals Limited & Ors.
- Citation: (2018) 10 SCC 707
- Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots’ Association of India (ALPAI) & Ors. v. Director General of Civil Aviation and Ors.
- Citation: (2011) 5 SCC 435
- Mumbai International Airport Private Ltd. v. Golden Chariot Airport and Anr.
- Citation: (2010) 10 SCC 422
- Karam Kapahi and Ors. v. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust and Anr.
- Citation: (2010) 4 SCC 753
- Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors.
- Citation: (2020) 8 SCC 129
- Kavita Trehan & Anr. v. Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd.
- Citation: (1994) 5 SCC 380
- Vimal Kishor Shah and others v. Jayesh Dinesh Shah and others
- Citation: (2016) 8 SCC 788
- Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd. and others
- Citation: (2011) 5 SCC 532
- Sunder Dass v. Ram Prakash
- Citation: (1977) 2 SCC 662
- Prem Singh and Ors. v. Birbal & Ors.
- Citation: (2006) 5 SCC 353
- State of Rajasthan and another v. Surendra Mohnot and others
- Citation: (2014) 14 SCC 77
- Dhiyan Singh and another v. Jugal Kishore and another
- Citation: AIR 1952 SC 145
- C. Beepathuma case
- Citation: AIR 1965 SC 241 : (1964) 5 SCR 836
- New Bihar Biri Leaves Co. v. State of Bihar
- Citation: (1981) 1 SCC 537
Statutes / Laws Referred
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Section 92
- Order VII Rule 11
- Section 96
- Section 9
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
- Section 9
- Section 37
This is an interesting question on Estoppel Doctrine from yesterday’s #SupremeCourt judgment and it has been answered in the negative in the factual context of this case: https://t.co/E9JSJCxoYp pic.twitter.com/WGziTGZmwo
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) August 15, 2025
Suggested Readings:
