Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 628 (2.83 seconds)
Documents citing United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Rajendra Singh & Ors on 14 March, 2000

Kushal Limited And Ors vs Indian Overseas Bank Being The Leader Of ... on 21 July, 2022

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 678, 680 & 681 of 2022 "Therefore, we have no doubt that the remedy to move for recalling the order on the basis of the newly discovered facts amounting to fraud of high degree, cannot be foreclosed in such a situation. No court or tribunal can be regarded as powerless to recall its own order if it is convinced that the order was wangled through fraud or misrepresentation of such a dimension as would affect the very basis of the claim." The same principle is reiterated in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rajendra Singh; Roshan Deen vs. Preeti Lal; Indian National Congress vs. Institute of Social Welfare; Indian Bank vs. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd; Deepa Gourang Murdeshwar Katre vs. Principal, V.A.V. College of Arts; Revandas Ranchhodhbhai Rathod vs. Jyotiben Wd/o Rameshbhai Madhusudan Thakar13; Bindeshwari Pd. Chaudhary V. Debendra Pd. Singh (referred supra).
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kushal Limited And Ors vs Indian Overseas Bank Being The Leader Of ... on 21 July, 2022

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 678, 680 & 681 of 2022 "Therefore, we have no doubt that the remedy to move for recalling the order on the basis of the newly discovered facts amounting to fraud of high degree, cannot be foreclosed in such a situation. No court or tribunal can be regarded as powerless to recall its own order if it is convinced that the order was wangled through fraud or misrepresentation of such a dimension as would affect the very basis of the claim." The same principle is reiterated in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rajendra Singh; Roshan Deen vs. Preeti Lal; Indian National Congress vs. Institute of Social Welfare; Indian Bank vs. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd; Deepa Gourang Murdeshwar Katre vs. Principal, V.A.V. College of Arts; Revandas Ranchhodhbhai Rathod vs. Jyotiben Wd/o Rameshbhai Madhusudan Thakar13; Bindeshwari Pd. Chaudhary V. Debendra Pd. Singh (referred supra).
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Balaji Fabricators Private Limited And ... vs Mrs. S. Rehana Rao, Mrs. Premila Rao And ... on 22 February, 2005

Before proceeding to consider the present claim of the applicants on merits, it shall be borne in mind that Regulation 27 of the Regulations having had been omitted with effect from 14.05.1992, the CLB is divested of the power to review its own order. However, in view of the decision of the apex court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Rajendra Singh (supra), the CLB would have the power to review its own order in case the finding and the relief granted are based on fabricated or forged documents or the order is obtained through fraud of such dimensions as would affect the very basis of the claim. Against this background, the plea now raised by the applicants that the third respondent had gifted his shares in favour of the second applicant, as a result of which there is no requirement of compliance with Article 8 must be examined in the light of various relevant documents presently made available by THE applicants. The third respondent in his communication dated 03.08.1998 addressed to the second applicant (pages 29 of Vol.II of application) expressed his willingness to transfer all the shares held in his name to the second applicant. This however, does not speak about the purported gift of shares by the third respondent. The communication dated 07.08.1998 of the third respondent (page 31 of Vol. II of application) is categorical that he transferred his shares to the second applicant and that the Company had accepted the lodging of shares for transfer but the transfer was not given effect for want of approval from IDBI. At the same time, there is on record a communication dated 12.08.1998 addressed by the third respondent to the second applicant (page 36 of Vol.II of application) confirming that he has no objection for transfer of his shares, when the shares were already transferred as per his communication dated 07.08.1998 (supra). The minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors held on 10.08.1998 (pages 32 & 33 of Vol.II of application) reads thus -
Company Law Board Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Rabindra Mandal And Ors. on 18 May, 2007

Their Lordships further held that the Judgments relied upon by the Respondents on the Judgments in the case of S.R. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath and Ors. 1994 (I) OLR (SC)-201 and in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh and Ors. and came to hold that the though fraud unravels everything, yet, "fraud must necessarily be pleaded and proved". In the entire history of the present litigation, nothing has been pleaded, much less has been proved as fraud. We cannot consider the plea of fraud without any basis.
Orissa High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - I Mahanty - Full Document

Maheshbhai Ramanbhai Patel vs Karmajyot Co-Operative Hosg. Society ... on 5 December, 2024

13. Taking note of the judgment of the Apex Court in United India Insurance Co.Ltd vs Rajendra Singh & Ors [AIR 2000 SC 1165], it was noted by the Court that fraud and justice never dwell together. The plenary power conferred on the High Court by the Constitution may become a mirage and people's faith in the efficacy of the High Courts would corrode if the High Court says that it has no power even to consider the contention that the awards secured are the byproducts of stark fraud played on a tribunal.
Gujarat High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - S Agarwal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next