Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.24 seconds)
The State Of Uttar Pradesh - Intervenor vs Purushottam Hindi Bhavan Nyas Samiti ... on 20 December, 2023 cites

Gowrishankar & Anr vs Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust & Ors on 22 February, 1996

45. The nature of duty of disclosure was expounded by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav and Ors. (supra), in the context of a submission that the Petitioners therein were guilty of suppression of facts, especially the rejection of an earlier application for extension of time, and a counter thereto on the premise that the fact which was allegedly suppressed was not material in view of subsequent developments. The Supreme Court observed, inter alia, as under :
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 128 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

Ram Chandra Singh vs Savitri Devi And Ors on 9 October, 2003

"34. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine 6 (1994) 1 SCC 1 SSP 18/32 IAL 6170 OF 2021.doc including res judicata. Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false. Suppression of a material document would also amount to a fraud on the court. (Vide S.P. Changalvaraya Naidu (supra); Gowrishankar & Anr. Vs. Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 2202; Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi & Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 319; Roshan Deen Vs. Preeti Lal AIR 2002 SC 33; Ram Preeti Yadav Vs. U.P. Board of High School & Intermediate Education AIR 2003 SC 4628; and Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. AIR 2004 SC 2836).
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 485 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Roshan Deen vs Preeti Lal on 2 November, 2001

"34. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine 6 (1994) 1 SCC 1 SSP 18/32 IAL 6170 OF 2021.doc including res judicata. Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false. Suppression of a material document would also amount to a fraud on the court. (Vide S.P. Changalvaraya Naidu (supra); Gowrishankar & Anr. Vs. Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 2202; Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi & Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 319; Roshan Deen Vs. Preeti Lal AIR 2002 SC 33; Ram Preeti Yadav Vs. U.P. Board of High School & Intermediate Education AIR 2003 SC 4628; and Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. AIR 2004 SC 2836).
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 275 - Full Document
1   2 Next