INTRODUCTION
Today, I will talk about the case of the Chairman,
State Bank of India & Another v. M.J. James, Civil Appeal No. 8223
of 2009, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the differences between ‘acquiescence’,
‘delay and laches’.
BACKDROP
Basically, the doctrines of delay, laches and
acquiescence are applied to dismiss the claim of the persons who approach the
court belatedly without any justifiable explanation for bringing action after
unreasonable delay.
DICTIONARY MEANING
Before adverting any further, let us understand
the dictionary meaning of these terms. ‘acquiescence’ generally means “a
person’s tacit or passive acceptance; implied consent to an act.” And ‘delay’
is generally meant as “the act of postponing or slowing.” Whereas
‘laches’ is commonly construed as “the equitable doctrine by which a
court denies relief to a claimant who has unreasonably delayed in asserting the
claim, when that delay has prejudiced the party against whom relief is sought.”
OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT
In order to understand more differences, let us go
through the pertinent observations by the Court.
Firstly, the Court explained that “in
literal sense, the term acquiescence means silent assent, tacit consent,
concurrence, or acceptance, which denotes conduct that is evidence of an
intention of a party to abandon an equitable right and also to denote conduct
from which another party will be justified in inferring such an intention. Acquiescence can be either direct with full
knowledge and express approbation, or indirect where a person having the right
to set aside the action stands by and sees another dealing in a manner
inconsistent with that right and in spite of the infringement takes no action
mirroring acceptance. However,
acquiescence will not apply if lapse of time is of no importance or
consequence.”
Secondly, the Court noted that “both
limitation and laches destroy the remedy but not the right. Laches like
acquiescence is based upon equitable considerations, but laches unlike
acquiescence imports even simple passivity. On the other hand, acquiescence
implies active assent and is based upon the rule of estoppel in pais. As a form
of estoppel, it bars a party afterwards from complaining of the violation of
the right. Even indirect acquiescence implies almost active consent, which is
not to be inferred by mere silence or inaction which is involved in laches.”
Thirdly, the Court also observed that acquiescence
is quite distinct from delay as acquiescence has the propensity to virtually
destroy the right of a person who has approached the Court. Acquiescence can also
be on the part of a statutory authority who is hearing a case and in case, an
authority is sitting over a case for an undue period of time, then such
authority cannot later on contend that the claim of the person who has
preferred the case is barred. “If the statutory authority has not
performed its duty within a reasonable time, it cannot justify the same by
taking the plea that the person who has been deprived of his rights has not
approached the appropriate forum for relief. If a statutory authority does not
pass any orders and thereby fails to comply with the statutory mandate within
reasonable time, they normally should not be permitted to take the defence of
laches and delay.”
Fourthly, the Court also stated that “delay
may obscure facts, encourage dubious claims, and may prevent fair and just adjudication.
Often, relevant and material evidence go missing or are not traceable causing
prejudice to the opposite party. It is, therefore, necessary for the court to
consciously examine whether a party has chosen to sit over the matter and has
woken up to gain any advantage and benefit.”
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Those were the observations by the Court. In
conclusion, important points could be summarized as under: -
a. Delay and laches destroy the remedy but not the
right whereas acquiescence may destroy the right as well.
b. Acquiescence implies active assent whereas
delay and laches involve passive conduct.
c. Acquiescence is a form of estoppel whereas
laches is not, and it may be cured depending upon the circumstances.
d. Laches is a form of unreasonable delay.
e. Delay and laches is usually on part of the
litigants whereas acquiescence may occur on part of the statutory authorities
as well in case of failure to perform statutory duty on time.
Thus, I hope that the meaning as well as the
differences between acquiescence, delay and laches are clear by now.
Excellent explanation
ReplyDelete