Principle of acquiescence - Indian Laws - General

Principle of Acquiescence In Power Control Appliances and Ors. v. Sumeet Research and Holdings- 1994 (2) TMI 297 - SUPREME COURT , held : Acquiescence is sitting by, when another is invading the rights and spending money on it. It is a course of conduct inconsistent with the claim for exclusive rights in a trade mark, trade name etc. It implies positive acts; not merely silence or inaction such as is involved in laches. In Harcourt v. White Sr. John Romilly said: It is important to distinguish mere negligence and acquiescence. therefore, acquiescence is one facet of delay. If the plaintiff stood by knowingly and let the defendants build up an important trade until it had become necessary to crush it, then the plaintiffs would be stopped by their acquiescence. If the acquiescence in the infringement amounts to consent, it will be a complete defence as was laid down in Mouson (J.G.) Co. v. Boehm. The acquiescence must be such as to lead to the inference of a licence sufficient to create a new right in the defendant as was laid down in Rodgers v. Nowill. In Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. v. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel and Ors.- 2006 (8) TMI 528 - SUPREME COURT , wherein it was held: Acquiescence is a facet of delay. The principle of acquiescence would apply where: (i) sitting by or allowing another to invade the rights and spending money on it; (ii) it is a course of conduct inconsistent with the claim for exclusive rights for trade mark, trade name, etc. The delay by itself, however, may not be necessarily a ground for refusing to issue injunction. It was opined: The defence of acquiescence, thus, would be satisfied when the plaintiff assents to or lays by in relation to the acts of another person and in view of that assent or laying by and consequent acts it would be unjust in all the circumstances to grant the specific relief. It was furthermore observed: Specific knowledge on the part of the plaintiff and prejudice suffered by the defendant is also a relevant factor. (See Spry on Equitable Remedies, 4th Edn., p. 433.) In Halsbury s Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Vol. 16, para 1505, it is stated: Where a person has by words or conduct made to another a clear unequivocal representation of fact, either with knowledge of its falsehood or with the intention that it should be acted upon, or has so conducted himself that another would, as a reasonable man, understand that a certain representation of fact was intended to be acted on, and that the other has acted on the representation and thereby altered his position to his prejudice an estoppel arises against the party who made the representation, and he is not allowed to aver that the fact is otherwise than he represented it to be. Delay would be a valid defence where it has caused a change in the subject matter and action or brought about a situation in which justice cannot be done. KHODAY DISTILLERIES LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS KHODAY INDIA LIMITED)- 2008 (5) TMI 701 - SUPREME COURT