Non-disclosure of the relevant and material documents with a view to obtain an undue advantage would amount to fraud. Therefore, the judgment or decree obtained by fraud was to be treated as a nullity as the respondent had not only suppressed a material fact but had also tried to mislead the High Court.
In the present case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Writ under Article 32 would be maintainable as after the Apex Court, no litigant has any opportunity of approaching any higher forum to question its decision. The only remedy available to the petitioners would be to approach this Court by way of writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for protection of the fundamental rights (Right to Privacy in this case) of citizens of India.
In present matter, the Honble Supreme Court observed that once the order of termination was approved by the Industrial Tribunal on appreciation of evidence led before it, thereafter the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal were binding between the parties and no contrary view could have been taken by the Labour Court contrary to the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal.
The Orders of the Registrar of Companies cannot be altered after 16 years of the declaration of the Company as defunct especially when the Complainant has no locus standi as he is neither a Company, nor a member and nor a creditor, hence he cannot be said to be a person aggrieved to question the Order of RoC is striking off the Companys name under Section 560(5) of the Companies Act, 1956.
In present case, the Honble Supreme Court invoked the provision of Article 142 of the Constitution of India and reduced the rate of Interest awarded by the arbitral tribunal by considering the fact that the long duration has been passed since filing of the claim.
Anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial. An order of anticipatory bail should not be blanket in the sense that it should not enable the accused to commit further offences and claim relief of indefinite protection from arrest.
Appellants are the erstwhile Promoters and therefore they cannot be continued to be in the Company in any capacity may be as shareholders as if they continue Resolution Plan shall not be workable at all.
High Court dismissed the petition stating that the terms of e-auction provided that any dispute is arbitrable and the Appellant is virtually seeking the enforcement of a contract through a writ petition for raising a claim for refund.
SC directed adjudicating authority to complete penalty proceedings on remand, at the earliest preferably within a period of six months from the date of this judgment as the penalty proceedings were reported to be pending pursuant to the remand order passed by the CESTAT.
In present case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Respondent in this case shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her father, who died in the year 1995. If such an appointment is made now, the same shall be against the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided.
