#judicial estoppel

Bombay High Court dismisses a writ petition under Article 226 after finding the petitioner misrepresented a hotel as a residential property and suppressed statutory permissions. The court invoked the principles of 'fraud on court' and judicial estoppel, reinforcing that litigants cannot seek equitable relief through misrepresentation or concealment of material facts.

The Karnataka High Court reaffirmed the doctrine of election, holding that a party cannot simultaneously accept benefits under a settlement agreement and later challenge its obligations. The ruling dismisses attempts to withdraw deposited funds while contesting the same instrument, reinforcing contractual estoppel in commercial disputes.

Karnataka High Court mandates regularisation of a lecturer's service from 01.12.2003 with full arrears, rejecting the State's attempt to restrict benefits to 26.03.2018. The ruling underscores that judicial directions on service regularisation are binding and cannot be circumvented by administrative orders, setting a precedent for grant-in-aid employees.

Madras High Court reinforces that parties cannot accept benefits under one court order while simultaneously seeking contradictory relief, invoking the 'approbate and reprobate' doctrine. The ruling dismisses a writ appeal attempting to sell plots after securing a prior order for sale deed cancellation and refund, emphasizing finality of judicial orders.