S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By ... vs Jagannath (Dead) By L.Rs. And Others on 27 October, 1993
In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath [(1994) 1 SCC 1] this Court in no uncertain terms observed:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.51 seconds)Ram Chandra Singh vs Savitri Devi And Ors on 9 October, 2003
In the case of Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi and others, JT 2005 (11) SC 439, Hon'ble Supreme Court has elaborately considered the meaning of the word fraud and its effects and held in para 15 to 34 as under :
Dhanpal And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others on 9 October, 2013
She submits that in the case of Dhanpal (supra), the Full Bench of this Court has not held that even the forged certificate of Adhikari Pariksha up to the year 2008 shall be treated to be valid.
Ram Preeti Yadav vs U.P. Board Of High School And ... on 3 September, 2003
23. Recently this Court by an order dated 3^rd September, 2003 in Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board of High School & Intermediate Education and Ors. reported in JT 2003 (Supp. 1) SC 25 held:
Smt. Shrisht Dhawan vs M/S. Shaw Brothers on 13 December, 1991
In Smt. Shrisht Dhawan v. Shaw Brothers , it has been held that:
Indian Bank vs M/S Satyam Fibres (India} Pvt.Ltd on 9 August, 1996
In Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. , this Court after referring to Lazarus Estates (supra) and other cases observed that 'since fraud affects the solemnity, regularity and orderliness of the proceedings of the Court it also amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court, that the Courts have inherent power to set aside an order obtained, by practising fraud upon the Court, and that where the Court is misled by a party or the Court itself commits a mistake which prejudices a party, the Court has the inherent power to recall its order".
Chittaranjan Das vs Durgapore Project Ltd. And Ors. on 21 December, 1994
In Chittaranjan Das v. Durgapore Project Limited and Ors. , It has been held:
Manohar Lal Chopra vs Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal on 16 November, 1961
In Manohar Lal Chopra v. Raj Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal , the law is stated in the following terms:
Union Of India & Others vs M/S. G.T.C. Industries Limited on 27 March, 2003
20. Applying the principles laid down in the aforementioned judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court on the facts of the present case, this Court finds that since the petitioner procured the appointment on the basis of forged mark sheet and certificate, it amounted to misrepresentation and fraud on the employer. In the circumstances, there would be no equity in favour of the petitioner or any estoppel against the employer while restoring to termination without holding any enquiry. The petitioner suppressed material information and gave false information and, therefore, he cannot claim any right to continue in service. The respondent employer has rightly exercised the discretion to terminate the services of the petitioner.