Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.28 seconds)
Tina Zelaing vs . Sonam Mehta Ors. on 4 July, 2023 cites

N. Khosla vs Rajlakshmi (Dead) & Ors on 6 March, 2006

29. Next, plaintiff has claimed that the decree was obtained by fraud as she never received any summons in the eviction petition. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has submitted that decree obtained by playing fraud upon a court is a nullity and non-est in the eyes of law. He has placed reliance upon judgments in N. Khosla V. Rajlakshmi (Dead) and others AIR 2006 SC 1249, S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu vs Jagannath 1994 AIR 853, A.V. Papayya Sastry and Ors. vs. Government of A.P. and Ors. Civil Appeal Bo. 5097-5099 of 2004, Bindra Watch Company vs Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Board and Anr. ILR 1974 Delhi 219 and Ajit Singh Chawla vs Rajinder Parshad Arora and Others CS (OS) 3245/ 2014. These judgments reiterate the trite proposition of law that if any judgment or order is obtained by fraud, it cannot be held to be a judgment or order in law. Thus, Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA SHARMA SHARMA Date:
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 29 - H K Sema - Full Document

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

29. Next, plaintiff has claimed that the decree was obtained by fraud as she never received any summons in the eviction petition. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has submitted that decree obtained by playing fraud upon a court is a nullity and non-est in the eyes of law. He has placed reliance upon judgments in N. Khosla V. Rajlakshmi (Dead) and others AIR 2006 SC 1249, S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu vs Jagannath 1994 AIR 853, A.V. Papayya Sastry and Ors. vs. Government of A.P. and Ors. Civil Appeal Bo. 5097-5099 of 2004, Bindra Watch Company vs Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Board and Anr. ILR 1974 Delhi 219 and Ajit Singh Chawla vs Rajinder Parshad Arora and Others CS (OS) 3245/ 2014. These judgments reiterate the trite proposition of law that if any judgment or order is obtained by fraud, it cannot be held to be a judgment or order in law. Thus, Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA SHARMA SHARMA Date:
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 979 - K Singh - Full Document

Bindra Watch Company vs Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Board And Anr. on 12 April, 1974

29. Next, plaintiff has claimed that the decree was obtained by fraud as she never received any summons in the eviction petition. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has submitted that decree obtained by playing fraud upon a court is a nullity and non-est in the eyes of law. He has placed reliance upon judgments in N. Khosla V. Rajlakshmi (Dead) and others AIR 2006 SC 1249, S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu vs Jagannath 1994 AIR 853, A.V. Papayya Sastry and Ors. vs. Government of A.P. and Ors. Civil Appeal Bo. 5097-5099 of 2004, Bindra Watch Company vs Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Board and Anr. ILR 1974 Delhi 219 and Ajit Singh Chawla vs Rajinder Parshad Arora and Others CS (OS) 3245/ 2014. These judgments reiterate the trite proposition of law that if any judgment or order is obtained by fraud, it cannot be held to be a judgment or order in law. Thus, Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA SHARMA SHARMA Date:
Delhi High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia vs Additional Member, Board Of Revenue, ... on 19 October, 1962

was sub-let to Harmeet Singh without the written consent of the landlord. It is settled that a necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively and a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding. Reliance is placed on Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Addl Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, [1963] Supp l SCR 676. Now, whether sub-tenant is merely a proper party and not a necessary party in a suit for possession by a landlord against a tenant is also well settled.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 470 - Full Document

Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ld.Tr.Dir vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 15 May, 2009

property from defendant no. 2 by way of GPA, Agreement to Sell, affidavit all dated 28.01.2008 i.e. Ex. DW1/2. It is trite that the transfer of an immovable property can only be by a deed of conveyance and in the absence of a duly stamped and registered deed of conveyance as required by law, no right, title or interest in an immovable property can be transferred. With regard to the legal validity of such documents i.e. agreement to sell, GPA, Will and receipt, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Suraj Lamps and Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana AIR 2009 SC 3077 that such documents cannot create any right in respect of immovable property. Thus, defendant no. 1 cannot be held to be the absolute owner of suit property by virtue of Ex. DW1/2. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 183 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Sarvinder Singh & Anr. vs Vipul Tandon on 14 July, 2022

plaintiff was not a party to the eviction petition or the execution proceedings and no application under Order XXI Rule 97 or 99 CPC was filed. Thus, in light of the abovementioned judgments, the present suit cannot be held to be barred. The reliance of Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1 and 2 upon judgment in Sarvinder Singh (supra) is misplaced as in that judgment the application was filed under the relevant provisions of Order XXI CPC which was held to be maintainable. Thus, the present suit in its present form is maintainable. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - A Bansal - Full Document
1   2 3 Next