Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.28 seconds)
Uppal Housing Ltd vs Dr. Prithipal Singh on 6 November, 2012 cites

S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu vs Jagannath on 27 October, 1993

In S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 853, the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect that the Courts of law are meant for imparting justice, between the parties. One, who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands. A person whose case is based on falsehood or concealment of material facts is not entitled to any relief and can be thrown out, at any stage of the litigation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 979 - K Singh - Full Document

M/S S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 17 March, 2004

Similar principle of law was laid down in S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors.[(2004)7SCC166], and G.M. Haryana Roadways vs Jai Bhagwan & Anr, 2008(3) SCR1156. Concealment of material facts amounted to commission of fraud. It is settled principle of law that if an order is obtained from a Court or a Tribunal, on the basis of concealment of material facts, by any of the parties, to the dispute, the same being the result of fraud, can be challenged, at any stage of the proceedings. Fraud and justice cannot dwell together. In S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu`s case (supra), it was also held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 326 - R Pal - Full Document

G.M. Haryana Roadways vs Jai Bhagwan & Anr on 5 March, 2008

10.   The Counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that, no doubt, it was not brought to the notice of the District Forum, in writing, by moving an application, when the Consumer Complaint was pending, that the possession of flat, had already been delivered to the complainants on 17.09.2010, yet, on the copy of the judgment, which was placed by him, on the District Forum file, he made an endorsement that possession of the flat, was given to them (complainants), in September 2010. Copy of the order, in Consumer Complaint no. 246 of 2010, decided on 23.11.2010, was placed on the District Forum file. However, it cannot be said, as to when, the endorsement on the same, that the possession was given to the complainants, in September, 2010, was made. This endorsement is not signed by the Counsel for the complainants. Even this could not be said to be a proper mode of bringing to the notice of the District Forum that the possession of the flat, was given to the complainants on 17.09.2010. The complainants were required to adopt a proper mode, by moving an application, stating therein, that the possession of flat, had been delivered to them on 17.09.2010, but they did not do so, resulting into passing of wrong order, referred to above, by the District Forum. It, therefore, could not be said that there was no deliberate concealment of material facts, with regard to taking of possession of the flat, by the complainants, on 17.09.2010, before the District Forum. The submission of the Counsel for the respondents, therefore, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 32 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1