Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

43. The expression “Fraud” has no definition in law which has universal application. In “KERR on the Law of Fraud and Mistake” 14, it is said:

The trial court at para 11(a) of the judgment recorded a submission that the fudging commenced w.e.f. the year 2002.

McDonnell, Denis Lane & Monroe, John George, A Treatise on the Law of Fraud and Mistake, KERR ON THE LAW OF FRAUD AND MISTAKE, 1952 (7th Edn.) Sweet & Maxwell Limited (London), page 1.  “It is not easy to give a definition of what constitutes fraud in the extensive signification in which that term is understood by Civil Courts of Justice. The Courts have always avoided hampering themselves by defining or laying down as a general proposition what shall be held to constitute fraud. Fraud is infinite in variety … Courts have always declined to define it, … reserving to themselves the liberty to deal with it under whatever form it may present itself. Fraud … may be said to include properly all acts, omissions, and concealments which involve a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust or confidence, justly reposed, and are injurious to another, or by which an undue or unconscientious advantage is taken of another. All surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling and other unfair way that is used to cheat any one is considered as fraud. Fraud in all cases implies a willful act on the part of any one, whereby another is sought to be deprived, by illegal or inequitable means, of what he is entitled to.” The ACT does not define the expression ‘Fraud’. A reference is made to the definition of the expression ‘Fraud’ in Section 17 of the Contract Act, 1872 in a bid to explain the meaning of the word ‘fraud’. 15 Section 19 of the Contract Act declares that if the consent to an agreement is caused by fraud, such agreement though a contract, is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused.

“Section 19 Voidability of agreements without free consent.—When consent to an agreement is caused by coercion, fraud or misrepresentation, the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused. A party to a contract, whose consent was caused by fraud or misrepresentation, may, if he thinks fit, insist that the contract shall be performed, and that he shall be put in the position in which he would have been if the representations made had been true.” Section 17 of the Contract Act defines fraud. Section 17. ‘Fraud’ defined.- ‘Fraud’ means and includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his connivance, or by his agent, with intent to deceive another party thereto or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract:— (1) the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true; (2) the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact; (3) a promise made without any intention of performing it;

79. Before I examine the facts of this case to answer the aforementioned questions, it is necessary to take note of the law, which applies to the case on hand. Indeed, if I may say so, it is fairly well settled by the several decisions of this Court.

80. The expression "fraud" occurring in Section 34 is not defined in the AAC Act but is defined in Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act,1872. It reads as under:

“17. ‘Fraud’ defined.—‘Fraud’ means and includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his connivance, or by his agent, with intent to deceive another party thereto or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract:— — (1) the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;