Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.24 seconds)

Devendra Kumar vs State Of Uttaranchal & Ors on 29 July, 2013

In this regard it is relevant to refer to a judgment rendered by the Honb'le Supreme Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Ors. reported in (2013) 9 SCC 363. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case upheld the termination of the said appellant as he had obtained appointment by suppressing material information before the employer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the said civil appeal relied upon the legal maxim as Sublato fundamento cadit opus i.e. a foundation being removed, the superstructure falls. Further reliance was placed on the legal maxim i.e. jus ex injuria non oritur i.e. a person claim any right arising out of his own wrongdoing, cannot be permitted to urge that their offence cannot be subjected to inquiry, trial or investigation. The opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court contained at paragraph 13 to 18 and 25 are illuminative on this aspect, which are quoted hereinbelow:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 173 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

A.P. State Financial Corpn vs Gar Re-Rolling Mills on 10 February, 1994

In A.P. State Financial Corpn. v. GAR Re-Rolling Mills and State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu this Court has observed that a writ court, while exercising its equitable jurisdiction, should not act to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud as courts are obliged to do justice by promotion of good faith. "Equity is, also, known to prevent the law from the crafty evasions and subtleties invented to evade law."
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 233 - K Singh - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra vs Prabhu on 3 November, 1993

In A.P. State Financial Corpn. v. GAR Re-Rolling Mills and State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu this Court has observed that a writ court, while exercising its equitable jurisdiction, should not act to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud as courts are obliged to do justice by promotion of good faith. "Equity is, also, known to prevent the law from the crafty evasions and subtleties invented to evade law."
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 273 - R M Sahai - Full Document

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

In Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi this Court held that "misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud", and further held: (SCC p. 327, para 18) "18. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by wilfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad."
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 485 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Union Of India And Anr vs M. Bhaskar And Ors on 6 May, 1996

In Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran this Court, after placing reliance upon and approving its earlier judgment in Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, observed as under: (M. Bhaskaran case, SCC p. 104, para 6) If by committing fraud any employment is obtained, the same cannot be permitted to be countenanced by a court of law as the employment secured by fraud renders it voidable at the option of the employer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 446 - Full Document

District Collector And Chairman ... vs M. Tripura Sundari Devi on 20 April, 1990

In Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran this Court, after placing reliance upon and approving its earlier judgment in Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, observed as under: (M. Bhaskaran case, SCC p. 104, para 6) If by committing fraud any employment is obtained, the same cannot be permitted to be countenanced by a court of law as the employment secured by fraud renders it voidable at the option of the employer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 715 - P B Sawant - Full Document
1   2 Next