Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.24 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
T. Vijendradas & Another vs M. Subramanian & Others on 9 October, 2007
Reliance may be placed to the judgement passed in the case
T.Vijendradas & Anr. Vs. M. Subramanian & Ors. reported in (2007) 8 SCC 751. Even in the case
of fraud, the Apex Court held that second review by the High Court was permissible.
Ram Chandra Singh vs Savitri Devi And Ors on 9 October, 2003
Similar view echoed by Apex Court in the case Ram Chandra Singh vs Savitri Devi &
Ors., reported (2003) 8 SCC 319 in paragraph 15-18 and 23-25 and in the case Vijay Shekhar &
Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2004) 4 SCC 666, a judgement of three Judges Bench.
It is also a legal position that any judgement/order obtained by fraud is a nullity and all subsequent
proceeding also will be nullity.
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Hamza Haji vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 18 August, 2006
Reliance is
placed to the judgement passed in the case Hamza Haji vs. State of Kerala & Anr., reported in
(2006) 7 SCC 416, wherein an order was procured by appellant from a Forest Tribunal by fraud on
submitting a statement that the concerned land was under self-cultivation (though the fact was not
true), to have an order under Section 3(3) of Kerala Private Forests (Vesting of Assignment) Act,
1971 to retain the land. High Court dismissed the appeal of State Government at admission stage. A
statutory review before Tribunal failed on the ground that the order of Tribunal merged with the
order of High Court in appeal. Thereafter a review application in High Court was dismissed on the
14
ground of long delay, which was 8 years. Order of dismissal again placed for review along with
review of original order. A body of citizens filed the writ application assailing Tribunal's order
pointing out fraud. High Court quashed the order of Tribunal and its earlier order on hearing second
review application and writ application analogously. The question raised before the Apex Court
whether second review was permissible, where the Apex Court answered that when there was a
fraud proved, it was permissible.
Vijay Shekhar & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 April, 2004
Similar view echoed by Apex Court in the case Ram Chandra Singh vs Savitri Devi &
Ors., reported (2003) 8 SCC 319 in paragraph 15-18 and 23-25 and in the case Vijay Shekhar &
Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2004) 4 SCC 666, a judgement of three Judges Bench.
It is also a legal position that any judgement/order obtained by fraud is a nullity and all subsequent
proceeding also will be nullity.
1