https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456225 Fraud, misrepresentation or coercion were not sufficient to unsettle the compromise terms because the allegations lacked reliable particulars and proof, while the surrounding documents, prior admissions and receipts supported a concluded settlement. The Court reiterated that fraud must be specifically pleaded and established by cogent evidence before a compromise can be avoided. It also held that discretionary relief would be refused where the applicants suppressed prior litigation, advanced shifting versions and failed to make full and frank disclosure. On the clean-hands principle, the motion was treated as an abuse of process and rejected in full with costs. en-us Mon, 22 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Jul 2024 11:01:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456225 Fraud, misrepresentation or coercion were not sufficient to unsettle the compromise terms because the allegations lacked reliable particulars and proof, while the surrounding documents, prior admissions and receipts supported a concluded settlement. The Court reiterated that fraud must be specifically pleaded and established by cogent evidence before a compromise can be avoided. It also held that discretionary relief would be refused where the applicants suppressed prior litigation, advanced shifting versions and failed to make full and frank disclosure. On the clean-hands principle, the motion was treated as an abuse of process and rejected in full with costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 22 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456225