Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
India decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Supreme Court held a compromise decree void under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC where defendant no. 5 had not signed and no valid authority or exigent circumstance was shown.
Because there existed substantial and cogent prima facie material casting serious doubt on the genuineness of the Admission Deed and the arbitration clause was embedded in that disputed document, the dispute went to the root of the arbitration agreement and was non-arbitrable at this stage; accordingly the High Court order referring the suit to arbitration was quashed and the High Court order declining appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 was affirmed.
Source excerpt
Because s.448 makes a person liable under s.447 and s.447 is an offence 'covered under Section 447' in s.212(6), the second proviso to s.212(6) prevents the Special Court from taking cognizance of offences under s.448 (and consequently s.451) on a private complaint unless the statutory pre-condition (complaint by Director SFIO or authorised Central Government officer) is met; therefore the Special Court's cognizance and all consequential proceedings insofar as they relate to ss.448 and 451 are quashed.
Source excerpt
Where the dispute arises from contractual assignment deeds that contain an arbitration clause and concerns in personam rights, the court must refer the parties to arbitration under Section 8; mere allegations of fraud do not, by themselves, preclude reference unless the fraud has implications in the public domain, and challenges as to existence, validity or vitiation by fraud are matters primarily for the arbitral tribunal (subject to Section 34 challenge).
Source excerpt
The Court held that the initial onus was on the petitioner to plead and prove particularized fraud to claim exemption from limitation under Order VII Rule 6 and Section 17; a registered sale deed is presumed genuine and the record showed the petitioner had signed and was aware of the deed, and the alleged fraud in the sale transaction did not demonstrate that the petitioner was kept unaware of her right to sue, therefore the suit was barred by limitation and the High Court committed no error.
Source excerpt
On the allegations in the complaint/FIR taken as true at the quashing stage, the receipts and conduct alleged disclose prima facie cognizable offences (ss.467, 468, 471, 420, 120B IPC) by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 through misrepresentation and conspiracy; the High Court erred in quashing the FIR chiefly on grounds of delay and because civil proceedings existed; quashing was inappropriate where cross-FIRs and contradictory defences require a full investigation, therefore the High Court order is set aside and the FIR revived.
Source excerpt
Where termination rests on allegations of fraud, the State must plead and substantiate the ingredients of fraud and produce supporting records when called upon; mere departmental correspondence or non-traceability of records is insufficient, and failure to produce records after court directions permits an adverse inference against the State; in absence of proof of fraud and any enquiry, termination of a long-serving employee is liable to be quashed and reinstatement with partial back wages may be ordered.
Source excerpt
The Agreement to Sell dated 30.08.1990 was validly proved and enforceable; plaintiffs paid full consideration, took possession and established part performance under Section 53A; the suit was within limitation under the second part of Article 54; allegations of fraud, pardanashin status, vagueness and undervaluation were not proved by defendants; subsequent sale deeds executed during pendency and in violation of injunction are void; Power of Attorney holders with firsthand knowledge could testify; High Court erred in reversing the Trial Court and trial court decree is restored.
Source excerpt
The insurer failed to rebut the MACT findings and the Final Report under Section 173 CrPC identifying the insured vehicle as involved, did not prove that the premium was not paid prior to the accident, and did not prove alleged fraud; the Certificate of Insurance cum Policy Schedule recorded the date of commencement of risk as 11/04/2017, and on the facts the policy covered the vehicle at the time of the accident; therefore the insurer is liable to indemnify and the appeals are dismissed.
Source excerpt
Where appointments on compassionate grounds were obtained by forged, fabricated or bogus documents, the appointments are vitiated by fraud and the employees so appointed are not entitled to protection under Article 311; in these facts the dismissals were legally sustainable and the Tribunal's order dismissing the Original Applications was correctly restored and the High Court order directing reinstatement was set aside.
Source excerpt
Explore more
