TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court sets aside High Court judgments obtained through fraud, orders fresh consideration of matters</h1> <h3>RAM CHANDRA SINGH Versus SAVITRI DEVI & ORS.</h3> RAM CHANDRA SINGH Versus SAVITRI DEVI & ORS. - 2003 (8) SCC 319 Issues Involved:1. Effect of fraud on court.2. Validity of auction sale and subsequent possession.3. Jurisdiction and powers of the court to set aside decrees obtained by fraud.4. Equitable adjustments and remedies available to parties affected by fraudulent acts.Detailed Analysis:1. Effect of Fraud on Court:The core issue in these appeals is the effect of fraud on court. The judgment reiterates that 'fraud vitiates every solemn act' and emphasizes that 'fraud and justice never dwell together.' Fraud, whether by misrepresentation or deceit, invalidates judicial acts, contracts, and transactions. The court cites several precedents, including Derry v. Peek and Lazarus Estate v. Berly, to underscore that fraud unravels all judicial acts and decisions.2. Validity of Auction Sale and Subsequent Possession:The appellant became the highest bidder in an auction sale of 30 acres of land, which was confirmed by the Executing Court. However, the auction sale was later set aside by the High Court, directing the appellant to seek partition or include the purchased area in the mortgagor's share. The appellant's subsequent possession and investment in the land were challenged, leading to further legal disputes. The court emphasizes that any order obtained by fraud is non-est in the eyes of law, rendering the auction sale and subsequent possession invalid if fraud is proven.3. Jurisdiction and Powers of the Court to Set Aside Decrees Obtained by Fraud:The judgment asserts that courts have inherent jurisdiction to set aside decrees obtained by fraud. It references Manohar Lal Chopra v. Raj Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, stating that civil courts can pass orders necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process. The court highlights that principles of res judicata do not apply to judgments obtained by fraud, as fraud vitiates all judicial acts.4. Equitable Adjustments and Remedies Available to Parties Affected by Fraudulent Acts:The court discusses the need for equitable adjustments when fraud is involved. It emphasizes that third-party rights, such as those of the auction purchaser, cannot be nullified by consent orders in which they were not a party. The judgment underscores the principle 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' (an act of the court shall prejudice no man) and the need for courts to adjust equities between parties. The court acknowledges that the Bank cannot unjustly enrich itself at the expense of the auction purchaser and that appropriate remedies must be found to ensure justice.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments, emphasizing that fraud vitiates all judicial acts and that courts have inherent powers to address fraud. The matters were remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration, with instructions to adjust equities and provide just remedies in light of the observations made. The appeals were allowed without costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
