Summary and Analysis of Sanjit Singh Salwan & Ors vs Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan & Ors

1. Heading of the Judgment

Sanjit Singh Salwan & Ors. vs. Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan & Ors.
Civil Appeal No. _____ of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 29398 of 2024)
Supreme Court of India
Decided on August 14, 2025
Coram: Justices Atul S. Chandurkar and Augustine George Masih

Citation: Sanjit Singh Salwan & Ors. v. Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan & Ors., (2025) INSC 988.

2. Relevant Laws and Sections

The judgment interprets and applies the following legal provisions:

• Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Bars civil suits for trust-related disputes unless filed with the consent of the Advocate General.

• Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Allows parties to seek interim measures from courts during arbitration.

• Doctrine of Estoppel: Prevents a party from denying previously accepted facts or positions if the other party relied on them to their detriment.

• Prohibition Against Approbation and Reprobation: A party cannot both accept and reject the same instrument/decision.

3. Basic Case Details

Parties:

• Appellants: Sanjit Singh Salwan & other trustees of Guru Tegh Bahadur Charitable Trust.

• Respondents: Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan & other trustees of the same Trust.

Core Dispute:

• The respondents (Sardar Inderjit group) sued the appellants (Sanjit Singh group) in a civil court, alleging wrongful interference in the Trust-managed school.

• The appellants argued the suit was barred under Section 92 CPC (trust disputes require special procedures). The trial court agreed and rejected the plaint (April 13, 2022).

• On appeal, both parties agreed to arbitrate their disputes. A sole arbitrator passed an award (December 30, 2022), which both accepted.

• The District Court disposed of the appeal based on a joint compromise deed (January 27, 2023), making the arbitral award part of the decree.

• When the appellants tried to enforce the award, the respondents claimed it was void under Section 92 CPC. The Commercial Court and High Court agreed, denying enforcement.

• The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

Key Question:

Can a party raise a plea of legal invalidity (non-arbitrability) after inducing the other party to accept a compromise based on arbitration?

4. Explanation of the Judgment

Background of the Dispute

• The respondents initially sued the appellants, claiming they were removed as trustees. The trial court dismissed the suit under Section 92 CPC.

• During the respondents’ appeal, both parties mutually agreed to arbitrate. They jointly sought disposal of the appeal based on the arbitrator’s award (December 30, 2022).

• The District Court recorded the compromise and passed a consent decree (January 27, 2023). The respondents never challenged this decree.

• Later, when the appellants tried to enforce the decree, the respondents argued the award was a "nullity" because trust disputes under Section 92 CPC cannot be arbitrated.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning

• Estoppel by Conduct:
  The respondents voluntarily participated in arbitration, accepted the award, and requested the District Court to pass a decree based on it.
  By doing so, they induced the appellants to comply with the award (e.g., withdrawing police complaints, paying money).
  After benefiting from the decree, the respondents could not "reprobate" (reject) it by calling it void. This violates the doctrine of election (Mumbai International Airport v. Golden Chariot Airport).

• No Estoppel Against Law?:
  The respondents argued that "there can be no estoppel against law" (i.e., Section 92 CPC).
  The Court rejected this: While legal invalidity can be raised, equitable estoppel prevails when a party’s conduct causes the other to suffer detriment (Dhiyan Singh v. Jugal Kishore).

• Conduct Overrides Technical Invalidity:
  Even if the award was technically invalid under Section 92 CPC, the respondents’ unilateral approbation-reprobation (accepting then rejecting) was unfair.
  The appellants acted in detrimental reliance on the respondents’ conduct. Allowing the respondents to resile would cause "grave injustice".

Decision

• The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Commercial Court and High Court.

• The appellants were permitted to revive execution proceedings (Misc. Case No. 122 of 2023) to enforce the consent decree.

• The execution court must decide the case on merits, ignoring the respondents’ plea of invalidity.

Key Quote:

"The respondents, by their conduct of accepting the compromise decree based on the arbitral award, are estopped from questioning its validity. Justice demands they cannot blow hot and cold."