Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Supreme Court Upholds Ownership Rights in Land Dispute, Rejects Fraud Claims</h1> <h3>Meghmala & Ors. Versus G. Narasimha Reddy & Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court found that the respondents engaged in an abuse of the court process by filing multiple rounds of litigation to protract the dispute. ... Whether in case a litigant files a review petition before filing the Special Leave Petition before this Court and it remains pending till the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed, the review petition deserves to be considered? Whether there has been a registered sale deed in favour of the appellant/applicant by the vendors which was registered on 21.5.1980 and he was put in possession? Issues Involved:1. Abuse of Process of Court2. Review Petition after Superior Court's Decision3. Fraud and Misrepresentation4. Forcible Dispossession5. Locus Standi of RespondentsAbuse of Process of Court:The Supreme Court noted that despite multiple rounds of litigation up to the High Court and one round before the Supreme Court, the respondents continued to abuse the court process. The respondents aimed to protract the dispute indefinitely, undermining the stability and finality of judicial pronouncements.Review Petition after Superior Court's Decision:The respondents' review petition before the High Court was filed after the Supreme Court had dismissed their Special Leave Petition (SLP). The Supreme Court cited precedents, including M/s. Kabari Pvt. Ltd. v. Shivnath Shroff and Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm v. K. Santhakumaran, which established that filing a review petition after the dismissal of an SLP constitutes an abuse of process. The Court concluded that the High Court should not have entertained the review petition, as it amounted to an affront to judicial discipline.Fraud and Misrepresentation:The respondents claimed that the sale deed in favor of the appellant was fraudulent and that material facts were suppressed. The Supreme Court reiterated the legal principle that fraud vitiates all judicial acts. However, the Court found no evidence linking the respondents to the suit land or proving any fraudulent activity by the appellant. The respondents failed to show any document supporting their claim to the land, and earlier proceedings had already addressed and dismissed allegations of fraud and misrepresentation.Forcible Dispossession:The Supreme Court emphasized that even a trespasser cannot be forcibly evicted without following due process. The respondents had forcibly occupied the suit land and raised unauthorized constructions. The Special Court had previously determined that the appellant was the rightful owner and that the respondents were land grabbers. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting that the respondents' forcible eviction of the appellant was unlawful.Locus Standi of Respondents:The respondents could not demonstrate any legitimate interest or right in the suit land. They were neither members of the cooperative society involved nor had any allotment been made in their favor. The Supreme Court found that the respondents lacked locus standi to challenge the appellant's ownership or to file applications regarding the suit land. The respondents' repeated litigation attempts were deemed frivolous and intended solely to delay the resolution of the case.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had erred in entertaining the respondents' writ petitions and review applications. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the Special Court's orders dated 6.7.2006 and 11.7.2006, which had dismissed the respondents' applications. The appeals were allowed, and the respondents were found to have engaged in malicious prosecution and abuse of the court process.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found