Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.51 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Indian Trusts Act, 1882
Shiv Kumar Chadha Etc. Etc vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors on 4 May, 1993
In this judgment, the decision in
Shiv Kumar Chadha's case, supra, has been followed.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By ... vs Jagannath (Dead) By L.Rs. And Others on 27 October, 1993
41. The term "fraud" has been explained in 1993 INDLAW SC 739
(S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs and others),
that a fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing
something by taking unfair advantage of another and it is a deception in order
to gain by another's loss and it is a cheating intended to get an advantage. It
is argued on the petitioners' side that the conduct of the respondent in playing
fraud would fit in with the definitions in the afore-stated decision.
Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors vs Nirmala Devi & Ors on 4 July, 2011
In 2011 8 SCC 249 (Ramrameshwari Devi and others v. Nirmala Devi and
others), it is held that if any party is found to have obtained ex parte
injunction on the basis of false pleadings and forged documents, he should be
adequately punished and no one should be allowed to abuse process of Court and
that imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and/or ordering prosecution
would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings
and forged documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also
control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. Their Lordships have formulated
the following guidelines in the matter of inferring fraud on the Court by any of
the parties to the proceedings. They are as follows:
Seeni Alias Sundarammal vs Ramasamy Poosari And 2 Others on 30 June, 2000
In 2000 (III) CTC 74 (Seeni alias Sundarammal v. Ramasamy Poosari and
2 others), this Court has held that when the attempt on the part of a party is
for abusing process of Court, this Court can invoke powers under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India.
K.K. Modi vs K.N. Modi & Ors on 4 February, 1998
It has also referred to a decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in K.K.Modi v. K.K.Modi reported in 1998 (3) SCC 573 wherein it is
held that relitigation whether or not barred by res judicata, if manifests from
the pleadings amounts to abuse of process of Court and that Court has
discretion to strike out the pleadings on being satisfied of there being no
chance of success in the suit.
Dindigul Pettai Sathangudi Shatriya vs Selvaraj Sundar on 17 December, 2008
44. He also cited a Judgment of mine reported in 2009 (2) CTC 57,
(Dindigul Pettai Sathangudi Shatriya Nadar Uravinmurai and another v. Selvaraj
and another), wherein I have followed the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and observed that when the Court is able to find out abuse of process of
Court which would lead to waste of judicial time, then Article 227 can be
invoked to strike off the petition or plaint from the file of the Court.