In view of what has already been accepted.
Explanation & Origin
The phrase “ex concessis” is a Latin phrase meaning “from what has been conceded.” It would seem to refer to an argument that begins with premisses that have already been admitted or granted by the oponent, although in practice it is used to label arguments in which the opponent’s “concession” of the premisses is merely assumed or implied, based presumably on their past behavior or opinions, or upon their known associates.
There will be eleven people for lunch. The maid exclaimed that that was a bad luck. Her mistress is in a hurry and replied that it was number 13 which brings bad luck. This reply can be considered as ex concessis. It does not question any personal interest of the maid , but is based on what she accepts. It is a quite good example of ex concessis.
M. D. Chamarbaugwalla vs The Union Of India [1957 AIR 628]
As regards competitions which involve substantial skill, however, different considerations arise. They are business activities, the protection of which is guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(g), and the question would have to be determined with reference to those competitions whether ss. 4 and 5 and rr. 1 1 and 12 are reasonable restrictions enacted in public interest. But Mr. Seervai has fairly conceded before us that on the materials on record in these proceedings, he could not maintain that the restrictions contained in those provisions are saved by Art. 19(6) as being reasonable and in the public interest. The ground being thus cleared, the only questions that survive for our decision are (1) whether, on the definition of ‘prize competition’ in s.2(d), the Act applies to competitions which involve substantial skill and are not in the nature of gambling; and (2) if it does, whether the provisions of ss. 4 and 5 and rr. II and 12 which are, ex concessi void, as regards such competitions, can on the principle of severability be enforced against competitions which are in the nature of gambling.
Harihar Prasad Singh And others vs Balmiki Prasad Singh And Others [1975 AIR 733]
In this case the only question that could arise would be whether the abatement which ex concessis took place, as regards one of the respondents should be confined to the share of the deceased respondent as against whom the appeal has abated, or whether it would result in the abatement of the entire appeal.
Daya Ram And Others vs Shyam Sundari [1965 AIR 1049]
This case it was held that : none on the record who could represent the estate of the deceased respondent. In such a case the only question that Could arise would be whether the abatement which ex concessis took place as regards one of the respondents should have effect partially i.e. confined to the share of the deceased respondent as against whom the appeal has abated, or whether it would result in the abatement of the entire appeal.
Kharak Singh vs The State Of U. P. & Others [1963 AIR 1295]
In this case it was held that : when an enquiry is made of the suspect the question mooted was that some fundamental right of his was violated. The answer must be in the negative because the suspect has the liberty to answer or not to answer the question for ex concessis there is no law on the point involving him in any liability-civil or criminal-if he refused to answer or remained silent.
Edited by Vigneshwar Ramasubramania
Approved & Published – Sakshi Raje