Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Meenakshi Singh vs Tikka Brijendra Singh on 20 September, 2017

Bench: Arun Mishra, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

                                                        1



                                      IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                      CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).7468 OF 2009


     MEENAKSHI SINGH & ORS.                                                APPELLANT(S)

                                              VERSUS

     TIKKA BRIJENDRA SINGH & ORS.                                       RESPONDENT(S)


                                                    O R D E R

We find no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.7 to 9 strenuously urged before us to take into consideration the compromise which was filed before the High Court. It is submitted that fraud was committed before the High Court to obtain the rendered decision. It is, however, admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the said respondents that a civil suit had been filed regarding the fraud which had allegedly been played. There is a dispute with respect to the fact as to whether the said civil suit is pending, or Signature Not Verified has Digitally signed by NEELAM GULATI been decided. Be that as it may. It is also Date: 2017.10.04 16:29:49 IST Reason:

submitted by Mr. V.V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1, that two special  2 leave petitions had been filed by respondent Nos.7 & 8. One of those SLPs had been dismissed on the ground of limitation while the other SLP was dismissed as withdrawn.

Thus in the aforesaid factual situation particularly in the absence of cross objections having been filed by the said respondents in this appeal, we cannot permit them to raise the aforesaid question of fraud in the appeal. It was also submitted that certain fraudulent affidavit have been filed in this Court. The facts have been disputed in the case.

Thus, in the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to entertain the application, filed under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), by the said respondents.

The applications are also dismissed. No costs.

................J. (ARUN MISHRA) ................J. (MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR) NEW DELHI;

SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
                                       3


   ITEM NO.107                    COURT NO.10        SECTION XIV

                 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F        I N D I A
                         RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal    No(s).    7468/2009

MEENAKSHI SINGH & ORS.                                  Appellant(s)

                                      VERSUS

TIKKA BRIJENDRA SINGH & ORS.                            Respondent(s)

Date : 20-09-2017 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR For Appellant(s) Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Adv.

Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, AOR Ms. Kruttika Vijay, Adv. Mr. Chaitanya Puri, Adv. Mr. Ayushman Kotwal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, AOR Mr. Y. Raja Gopala Rao, AOR Mr. K. Sharat Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Arvind Kumar, Adv.

Ms. Laxmi Arvind, AOR Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mathur, Adv. Ms. Poonam Prasad, Adv.

Mr. Balraj Dewan, AOR Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Parijat Sinha, AOR Ms. Reshmi Rea Sinha, Adv. Mr. Rudra Dutta, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order. Pending application, if any shall stand disposed of.

(NEELAM GULATI) (TAPAN KUMAR CHAKRABORTY) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER (signed order is placed on the file)