Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.27 seconds)The General Clauses Act, 1897
Article 243ZG in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Prabhakar Narayan Kelkar And Ors. vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 18 September, 1998
48. Apart from this, in a judgment of the M.P. High Court in the matter of
Prabhakar Narayan Kelkar and others v. State of M.P. and
others 11, the M.P. High Court while dealing with the situation on
withdrawal of no-confidence motion against Deputy Mayor under
the transitory provisions of the M.P. Nagar Palika Vidhi
(Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1997, it has been held that the existence
of a valid requisition is a condition precedent for holding the
meeting for the consideration of no-confidence motion and it has
further been held that once the requisition ceases to be a
requisition before the meeting could take place the Commissioner
has no jurisdiction to proceed further acting upon a requisition
which ceases to exist in the eye of law. It has been observed as
under: -
Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 22 August, 2005
In the matter of Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v. State of
Maharashtra and others 14, it has been held that misrepresentation
itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may
also give reason to claim relief against fraud and it was observed as
under: -
The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr vs T. Suryachandra Rao on 25 July, 2005
19. These aspects were recently highlighted in the
State of Andhra Pradesh and another v. T. Suryachandra
Rao, (2005 (5) SCALE 21)."
Indian Bank vs M/S Satyam Fibres (India} Pvt.Ltd on 9 August, 1996
In the matter of Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. 15,
the Supreme Court referring to Lazarus Estates Ltd. (supra) and
Smith v. East Elloe Rural Distt. Council 16, stated as follows: -
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Rajendra Singh & Ors on 14 March, 2000
In the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra
Singh and others 17, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have
held that the remedy to move for recalling the order on the basis of
the newly-discovered facts amounting to fraud of high decree,
cannot be foreclosed in such a situation. No court or tribunal can
be regarded as powerless to recall its own order if it is convinced
that the order was wangled through fraud or misrepresentation of
such a dimension as would affect the very basis of the claim.
15 (1996) 5 SCC 550
16 (1956) 1 All ER 855
17 (2000) 3 SCC 581
Ram Chandra Singh vs Savitri Devi And Ors on 9 October, 2003
In the matter of Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and
others 18, the Supreme Court held thus: