logo
SC recalls order after finding litigant obtained compensation by fraud

SC recalls order after finding litigant obtained compensation by fraud

News185 days ago
New Delhi, Jul 23 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Wednesday recalled its order on compensation awarded over a land in Gautam Budh Nagar in Uttar Pradesh acquired by the Noida authority, saying it was obtained by fraud and has to be erased from the records being a nullity.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujal Bhuyan and Dipankar Datta adjudicated the dispute over the ownership of land between, which was purchased by three persons Reddy Veerana, Vishnu Vardhan and one T Sudhakar in 1997 and acquired by Noida in 2005 and now forms part of Noida's commercial hub in Sector 18.
It was alleged that Veerana fraudulently claimed sole ownership of the land in several proceedings before diverse judicial fora from civil courts to high court and to the Supreme Court in 2022 when top court had passed an order for enhanced compensation to Veerana.
Veerana was alleged to have fraudulently ousted Vardhan and Sudhakar and pocketed the compensation amount.
Vishnu Vardhan contested the claim of Veerana by initiating several proceedings and sought recall of the May, 2022 order of the apex court.
Justice Datta, who penned the verdict for the bench, said from the multiple decisions of this court on 'fraud, what follows is that fraud and justice cannot dwell together".
'The legislature never intends to guard fraud, the question of limitation to exercise power does not arise, if fraud is proved, and even finality of litigation cannot be pressed into service to absurd limits when a fraud is unravelled." The order added, 'However, even if Vishnu had not applied for a review – as a logical corollary of the aforesaid discussions – the decision in Reddy Veerana (2022 verdict) too having been obtained by Reddy by playing fraud, has to be erased from the records being a nullity." The bench also set aside the Allahabad High Court's October 28, 2021 verdict which accepted Veerana as the sole owner of the property and enhanced the compensation from Rs 152.04 per sq. metre to Rs 1,10,000 per sq. metre saying the fraud has vitiated the entire proceedings.
'As a logical corollary of the impugned order being set aside, it would follow that the decision of this Court in Reddy Veerana (2022 verdict), upholding the same, which too was obtained by playing fraud, will also be a nullity, and thus stand recalled in exercise of our inherent powers," the bench ordered.
Referring to a 1994 verdict of the apex court, the bench said that fraud was held to be an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by 'taking unfair advantage of another: a deception in order to gain by another's loss".
'We begin with recording the realisation that undoubtedly, there seems to be much more than what has met our eyes. However, like all courts, we are bound to decide cases based on the evidence on record, judicially noticeable facts, and the applicable law. Despite Reddy and Vishnu – and to a certain extent Sudhakar – having used the judicial process obviously to secure their personal interests, we cannot be a bystander," it said.
The verdict continued, 'If things have happened with a telling effect on public interest, resulting in public funds from the public exchequer being drained, the same has to be dealt with within the bounds of our jurisdiction. In our pursuit for the truth and to uphold the rule of law, we must adhere to established principles unless a valid reason warrants deviation." The top court remanded the case back to the high court and with a direction to implead Vishnu Vardhan and T Sudhakar, the other two owners of the land as additional respondents. PTI MNL MNL AMK AMK
view comments
First Published:
July 23, 2025, 21:15 IST
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

President reference ‘misleading', wants SC to sit on appeal against its own verdict in TN Governor case: Kerala to SC
President reference ‘misleading', wants SC to sit on appeal against its own verdict in TN Governor case: Kerala to SC

The Hindu

time5 minutes ago

  • The Hindu

President reference ‘misleading', wants SC to sit on appeal against its own verdict in TN Governor case: Kerala to SC

The State of Kerala on Monday (July 28, 2025) urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the Presidential Reference seeking clarity on whether judiciary can fix timelines for the President and State Governors to clear State Bills, saying it is a ruse to make the apex court sit in appeal of its own authoritative pronouncement in the Tamil Nadu Governor case. The Constitution, the State said, does not allow the apex court to sit in appeal of its own judgments, nor can the President vest appellate jurisdiction in the court through a Presidential Reference. The State said the Reference was 'misleading' and 'suppressed facts'. Kerala, represented by senior advocate K.K. Venugopal and C.K. Sasi, said the President can only refer questions to the Supreme Court under its advisory jurisdiction of Article 143 of the Constitution if they had not been decided by the apex court. Quoting judicial precedents, including the 1993 Reference in the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, the State said powers of the Governors and the President under Article 200 and 201 of the Constitution have been the subject of three separate authoritative judgments in the cases filed by the States of Telangana, Punjab and, finally, Tamil Nadu on April 8. 'When the Supreme Court in its adjudicatory jurisdiction pronounces its authoritative opinion on a question of law, it cannot be said that there is any doubt about the question of law or the same is res integra so as to require the President to know what the true position of law on the question is. The decision of this court on a question of law is binding on all courts and authorities. Hence, the President can refer a question of law only when this court has not decided it,' Kerala submitted. The State pointed out that the Tamil Nadu Governor case judgment authored by Justice J.B. Pardiwala on April 8 has already addressed in detail the questions raised in the Presidential Reference in May. If the government wanted to challenge the April 8 judgment, it should have filed a review or a curative petition in the apex court, and not take the route of Presidential Reference, Kerala said. The State argued the very fact the government has not sought a review of the April 8 judgment, establishing it as settled law. 'The Union of India has not filed any review or curative petition against the judgment delivered by the court in the Tamil Nadu case, and has thus accepted the judgment…The judgment, having not been assailed or set aside in any validly constituted proceedings, has attained finality and is binding on all concerned under Article 141, and cannot be challenged obliquely in collateral proceedings such as in the instant reference. The President and the Council of Ministers have to act in aid of the Supreme Court under Article 144 of the Constitution,' the State of Kerala reasoned. EOM

SC stays PMLA trial as chargesheet in predicate case pending for 7 yrs
SC stays PMLA trial as chargesheet in predicate case pending for 7 yrs

Business Standard

time5 minutes ago

  • Business Standard

SC stays PMLA trial as chargesheet in predicate case pending for 7 yrs

The Supreme Court has stayed a trial against four women accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) because a chargesheet in the original criminal case has not been filed even after seven years, Live Law reported. The order came from a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, after hearing arguments by Senior Advocate PB Suresh. He appeared for the petitioners and pointed out that they were not named in the original offence (called the predicate offence). He questioned how the PMLA trial could proceed when no chargesheet had been filed in that base case. While staying the trial for the four petitioners, the Supreme Court also issued notices to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Indian Bank, which is the complainant in the original case. What is the case? In 2018, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered an FIR under Section 120B (criminal conspiracy), Section 406 (criminal breach of trust), Section 420 (cheating), Section 468 (forgery), and Section 471 (using forged documents) of the Indian Penal Code. This was based on a complaint by Indian Bank against Cethar Limited and others, the news report said. Following this, the Enforcement Directorate filed a money laundering case (ECIR) based on the same FIR, which brought the petitioners under investigation. The four women approached the trial court asking to be discharged from the PMLA case, but their plea was rejected. They then filed a criminal revision petition, which was also dismissed by the Madras High Court. Left with no other option, they approached the Supreme Court. What did the petitioners say? All four petitioners are women and family members of the former Chairman and Managing Director of Cethar Limited. They claim they had no role in the company's financial or operational decisions. According to petitioners, they have been accused only because of their relationship with the former MD. They also pointed out that they are not named in the original FIR by the CBI and that there is no proof showing they received or controlled any "proceeds of crime". Despite this, their jewellery and other belongings have been seized, and the company itself is now under liquidation, Live Law reported. Similar cases cited To support their plea, the petitioners referred to the Telangana High Court's decision in Bharathi Cement Corporation Pvt. Ltd vs Directorate of Enforcement. In that case, the high court had paused the PMLA trial until the main case (predicate offence) was decided by the special court. That case involved alleged bribery and irregular allotment of mining leases to Bharathi Cement Corporation, linked to the Andhra Pradesh government. The ED had filed a money laundering case against the company and others, including Bharathi Reddy, wife of former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Jagan Mohan Reddy. While the case had reached the Supreme Court, it was later withdrawn at the ED's request.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store