Published on: 20 November 2022 at 20:25 IST
Court – Supreme Court of India
Citation – Union of India v/s N. Murugesan (2022)
Supreme Court of India has held that acquiescence means implied and reluctant consent to an act. It is held that acquiescence takes place when a person despite adequate knowledge of the bad terms of the contract, chooses to continue by consciously ignoring it. In such scenario, the party cannot insist upon the compliance of the original terms.
Para – 25
Acquiescence would mean a tacit or passive acceptance. It is implied and reluctant consent to an act. In other words, such an action would qualify a passive assent. Thus, when acquiescence takes place, it presupposes knowledge against a particular act.
From the knowledge comes passive acceptance, therefore instead of taking any action against any alleged refusal to perform the original contract, despite adequate knowledge of its terms, and instead being allowed to continue by consciously ignoring it and thereafter proceeding further, acquiescence does take place.
As a consequence, it reintroduces a new implied agreement between the parties. Once such a situation arises, it is not open to the party that acquiesced itself to insist upon the compliance of the original terms. Hence, what is essential, is the conduct of the parties.
We only dealt with the distinction involving a mere acquiescence. When acquiescence is followed by delay, it may become laches. Here again, we are inclined to hold that the concept of acquiescence is to be seen on a case-to-case basis.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra
Key Words – Acquiescence, Contract, Original Terms.