9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Estoppel as a defense to right of pre-emption, application of estoppel in pre-emption cases, interpretation of notice requirement under the Rajasthan Pre-emption Act. Judgment Summary: The Supreme Court considered the applicability of estoppel as a defense to the right of pre-emption in the context of a pre-emption case. The Court noted that estoppel is a rule of equity designed to prevent unfair behavior and ensure justice. It operates as a check on spurious conduct and is invoked to aid in the administration of justice. The Court emphasized that estoppel can be used as a defense even if not specifically provided for in the law. The Court cited precedents where estoppel was applied to prevent unjust outcomes. The Court highlighted that estoppel can be invoked to curb unwarranted conduct and ensure fairness in transactions. Regarding the interpretation of the notice requirement under the Rajasthan Pre-emption Act, the Court disagreed with the High Court's view that estoppel could only arise if notice under Section 8 of the Act was given by the seller. The Court emphasized that estoppel can be used as a defense irrespective of statutory provisions. The Court referred to a Privy Council decision where estoppel was applied even in the absence of a statutory notice requirement. The Court clarified that estoppel can be invoked based on broad considerations of equity to prevent injustice. The Court discussed the nature of the right conferred by Section 9 of the Act, emphasizing that pre-emption is a right of substitution and not favored by courts due to its restrictive nature on property rights. The Court highlighted that the extinction of the right by conduct does not amount to statutory illegality or oppose public policy. The Court distinguished between validity and illegality of transactions, noting that failure to serve notice under the Act does not render the sale void. The Court emphasized that the Act does not debar a pre-emptor from waiving the right, and failure to exercise the right within the specified period results in its extinguishment. Based on the facts of the case, where the respondent knew of the sale deed, assisted in construction, and delayed invoking the right of pre-emption, the Court found the respondent's conduct inequitable. The Court held that the respondent could not defeat the appellant's right and restored the decision of the First Appellate Court. The Court allowed the appeal and awarded costs to the appellant. In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the application of estoppel in pre-emption cases, clarified the interpretation of notice requirements under the Rajasthan Pre-emption Act, and emphasized the importance of equity and fairness in such matters.
|
