Back
D.P.MOHAPATRA, K.T.THOMAS
United India Insurance Company LTD. : United India Insurance Co. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
Rajendra Singh: Sanjay Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Thomas, J.-Leave granted.
2. If what the appellant-Insurance Company now says is true, then a rank fraud had been played by two claimants and wangled two separate Awards from a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for a bulk sum. But neither the Tribunal nor the High Court of Allahabad, before which the Insurance Company approached for annulling the awards, opened the door but expressed helplessness even to look into the matter and hence the Insurance Company has filed these appeals by Special leave.
3. "Fraud and justice never dwell together". (Frans at jus nunquam cohabitant) is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these centuries. Lord Denning observed in a language without equivocation that "no judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for, fraud unravels everything" (Lazarus Estate Ltd. v. Beasley1).
4. For a High Court in India to say that it has no power even to consider the contention that the awards secured are the by products of stark fraud played on a Tribunal, the plenary power conferred on the High Court by the Constitution may become a mirage and people s faith in the efficacy of the High
Based on the provided list, there are no cases explicitly identified as "overruled," "reversed," or "abrogated."
However, one specific case appears in the provided documents with a note regarding its status:
* **Sugna Ram VS Birla White Cement, Kharia Khangar, Tehsil Bhopalgarh - 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 3204 and Sugna Ram VS Birla White Cement, Kharia Khangar, Tehsil Bhopalgarh - 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 1564**: Refer to *Hans Raj* (2004) AIR SC 4776, stating: "which judgment has been over-ruled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. v. [Name]."
* *Explanation:* These documents explicitly categorize the *Hans Raj* case as "over-ruled."
The vast majority of the provided entries cite *United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh* (2000) 3 SCC 581 as a foundational precedent.
**Group: Followed / Relied Upon / Applied**
* **URMILA SRIVASTAVA VS REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, VARANASI - 2000 0 Supreme(All) 1008, R. K. Plastics VS Punjab Land Development Reclamation and Corporation Ltd. - 2001 0 Supreme(P&H) 763, Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Nirupama Mallick - 2003 0 Supreme(Ori) 567, United India Insurance Company Ltd. VS Shyam Nath - 2017 0 Supreme(Gau) 733, NARAYAN LILLAHARE VS DINESH - 2007 0 Supreme(MP) 81**: These cases follow the principle established in *Rajendra Singh* that a Court or Tribunal is empowered to recall its own order if it is convinced that the order was obtained by fraud.
* **Rakesh Ghatiwal* VS State of Rajasthan - 2000 0 Supreme(Raj) 386, Bahadur Nath VS State of Rajasthan - 2001 0 Supreme(Raj) 191, Ansi Devi VS State of Rajasthan - 2001 0 Supreme(Raj) 1207, Kera Ram VS State of Raj - 2002 0 Supreme(Raj) 1543, [COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT
VS STATE OF U P
2003 0 Supreme(All) 1731](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02500042774), RAMESH PRASAD PATEL VS UNION OF INDIA - 2006 0 Supreme(All) 1116, DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS. VS ASHOK KUMAR - 2006 0 Supreme(Del) 575, ASHUTOSH KUMAR DWIVEDI VS UNION OF INDIA - 2007 0 Supreme(All) 818, RENUBALA JENA VS STATE OF ORISSA - 2008 0 Supreme(Ori) 932, TILOTTAMA KANHAR VS STATE OF ORISSA - 2008 0 Supreme(Ori) 553, Vinod Kumar Tomar VS Union of India - 2015 0 Supreme(MP) 1074, Ajayaram S/o Late Annaiayappa VS Principal Secretary to Government of Karnataka Revenue Department - 2011 0 Supreme(Kar) 974, S. Sundaresh VS State of Karnataka, The Principal Secretary, Revenue Government of Karnataka, Bangalore - 2017 0 Supreme(Kar) 566, Pinki Kumari VS State of Jharkhand - 2019 0 Supreme(Jhk) 630**: All these entries apply and quote the maxim stated in *Rajendra Singh*: "Fraud and justice never dwell together (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant)."
* **, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD VS ADDL. DISTRICT, SESSIONS JUDGE, MUZAFFARNAGAR - 2003 0 Supreme(All) 373, [United India Insurance Co. Ltd
VS Addl. District, Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar
2003 0 Supreme(All) 385](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02500042940), Benoy Kumar Mondal VS Sweta Chandra - 2001 0 Supreme(Cal) 443, ARSHID DIJOO VS KASHMIR TIBBIA COLLEGE - Consumer (2007)**: These cases rely on *Rajendra Singh* as a binding precedent to allow the recall of awards where fraud is alleged or proven.
* **Sanjeev G. Devre & others VS State of Maharashtra & others - 2003 0 Supreme(Bom) 1048, KRISHNA CHAND VS DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MAHARAJGANJ - 2009 0 Supreme(All) 3784, MITHILESH KUMARI VS STATE OF U. P. - 2010 0 Supreme(All) 4039, COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, BACHCHAN SINGH TOMER UCCHATTAR MADHYAMIK VIDYALAYA VS SECRETARY, SECONDARY EDU. CIVIL SECRETARAIT U. P. - 2011 0 Supreme(All) 2154, BASUDEO VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE - 2011 0 Supreme(All) 2593, Deputy Inspector of Schools VS Khalilur Rahman Borbhuiya - 2010 0 Supreme(Gau) 253, Mahesh Chandra Shukla VS Achal Mishra Basic Shiksha Adhikari Lakhimpur Kheri - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1210, Jag Mohan Agarwal VS Kanchan Kumari Jain - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1244**: These entries reinforce the authority of *Rajendra Singh* in conjunction with *Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley* regarding the unraveling of fraud.
**Group: Distinguished (Specific Contexts)**
* **M. G. Contractors Pvt. Ltd. VS State of Haryana - 2015 0 Supreme(P&H) 1337**: Mentions a case, but discusses it in the context of procedural limitations, noting that "merely because it has been held [elsewhere]..." implying a distinction based on the specific statutory construction of the Arbitration Act or similar frameworks.
* **Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. VS Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Silchar and Ors. - 2003 0 Supreme(Gau) 108**: This entry contains a list of company names (*Agra Electric Supply Co. Ltd.*, *Cotton Spinning*, etc.) but does not provide sufficient context regarding the judicial treatment or the nature of the citation.
* **Montreaux Resorts P. Ltd. VS Sonia Khosla - 2011 0 Supreme(Del) 1056**: Mentions *United India Insurance* alongside *Nibro Ltd.*, but the context of the treatment is unclear (it appears to be discussing director representation rather than the fraud principle).
* **DEEPAK SHARMA VS STATE OF U. P. - 2005 0 Supreme(All) 2628**: Lists several companies (*Air India Ltd.*, *Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd.*) but lacks a descriptive sentence identifying if the *Rajendra Singh* principle is being followed, applied, or distinguished.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
