REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Vishnu Vardhan Appellant

V/S

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

NATVARLAL PUNJABHAI VS. DADUBHAI MANUBHAI [REFERRED TO]
LAZARUS ESTATES LTD. VS. BEASLEY [REFERRED TO]
REDDY VEERANA VS. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
SHIVDEO SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS CALCUTTA VS. EAST INDIA COMMERCIAL CO LTD [REFERRED TO]
MAJOR S S KHANNA IN BOTH THE APPEALS VS. BRIG F J DILLON IN BOTH THE APPEALS [REFERRED TO]
NARESH SHRIDHAR MIRAJKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADRAS VS. MADURAI MILLS CO LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
JATAN KUMAR GOLCHA VS. GOLCHA PROPERTIES P LTD [REFERRED TO]
D A V COLLEGE BHATINDA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
E P ROYAPPA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB NOW HARYANA VS. AMAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
AMRIT LAL BERRY K N KAPUR VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE NEW DELHI:COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE CENTRAL REVENUE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. SHAMLAL MURARI [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAN VS. KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA [REFERRED TO]
MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAMANA DAYARAM SHETTY VS. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX U P LUCKNOW VS. VIJAI INT UDYOG G T ROAD SIKANDRARAO HATHRAS [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA UNION OF INDIA BISWAROOP CHATTERJEE ACHINTA KUMAR BISWAS NABENDU BOSE LAXMI NARAYAN VS. TULSIRAM PATEL:SADANAND JHA:G P KOUSHAL:UNION OF INDIA:STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
OWNERS AND PARTIES INTERESTED IN M V "VALI PERO" OWNERS AND PARTIES INTERESTED IN M V "VALI PERO" VS. FERNANDEO LOPEZ:FERNANDEO LOPEZ [REFERRED TO]
NORTHERN CORPORATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SHRISHT DHAWAN VS. SHAW BROTHERS [REFERRED TO]
S P CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU VS. JAGANNATH [REFERRED TO]
NEYVELY LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED VS. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LAND ACQUISITION NEYVELY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. M K KUNHIKANNAN NAMBIAR MANJERI MANIKOTH NADUVIL DEAD [REFERRED TO]
TAYABBHAI M BAGASARWALLA VS. HIND RUBBER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
BASUDEO TIWARY VS. SIDOKANHU UNIVERSITY [REFERRED TO]
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. RAJENDRA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
S SHANMUGAVEL NADAR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
S J S BUSINESS ENTERPRISES P LTD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH B DESAI VS. BIPIN VADILAL MEHTA [REFERRED TO]
A V PAPAYYA SASTRY VS. GOVERNMENT OF A P [REFERRED TO]
RAMDAS ATHAWALE VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
M R F LTD VS. MANOHAR PARRIKAR [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE DELHI VS. PEARL DRINKS LTD [REFERRED TO]
MEGHMALA VS. G NARASIMHA REDDY [REFERRED TO]
INDERJIT SINGH GREWAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
POONAM VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
NIDHI KAIM AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
AMINA MARWA SABREEN A (MINOR) AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
KHODAY DISTILLERIES LTD. VS. SRI MAHADESHWARASAHAKARA SAKKARE KARKHANE LTD [REFERRED TO]
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. MANOHARLAL ETC. [REFERRED TO]
SATHYANATH VS. SAROJAMANI [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Nidhi Kaim v. State of Madhya Pradesh,(2017) 4 SCC 1. a three-Judge Bench of this Court emphatically asserted " ... stated simply, nothing ... nothing ... and nothing, obtained by fraud, can be sustained, as fraud unravels everything."

(2.) At the end of the last century, this Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath,(1994) 1 SCC 1. noticed the growing trend of abuse of the process of law by dishonest litigants playing fraud on courts. Fraud was held to be an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another: a deception in order to gain by another's loss. The opening paragraph of such decision reads as follows: "Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal" observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree - by the first court or by the highest court - has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings.

(3.) "Fraud unravels everything" was famously said by Lord Denning in Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley,(1956) 1 Q.B. 702. emphasising that fraud can invalidate judgments, contracts and all transactions. The principle highlights the importance of honesty and transparency in legal proceedings and transactions. However, it is a cardinal principle of law that fraud has to be pleaded and proved. Order VI Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908[CPC] may be referred to ordaining that particulars, inter alia, of fraud have to be stated in the pleadings.

Click here to view full judgment.

VISHNU VARDHAN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address