Back
SUNITA AGARWAL, PRANAV TRIVEDI
Maheshbhai Ramanbhai Patel – Appellant
Versus
Karmajyot Co-Operative Hosg. Society Ltd – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. By means of the instant appeal, the appellant herein seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 03.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in granting the prayers made by the original petitioner for quashing the consent decrees dated 24.08.2000 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 637 of 2000 and dated 17.05.2003 in Regular Civil Suit No. 538 of 2003. Further the direction issued by the learned Single Judge that any action taken pursuant to the aforesaid consent decrees against the petitioner society be also quashed and set aside. A further direction has been given to the appropriate officer as authorised by the court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara and the District Collector, to register criminal proceedings against the perpetrators of fraud.
2. We may note that the original Writ petition was filed by the society registered under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, constituted for the purpose of construction of residential units for its members. The original respondent no.4 who was holding the agricultural land bearing Revenue survey no.640 in the sim of village Gotri, District Vadod
A consent decree obtained by fraud is a nullity and can be challenged in any court, reinforcing the principle that fraud vitiates all judicial acts.
A legal right cannot arise from an unlawful act, and a judgment, decree, or order obtained by fraud is null and void. The court can invoke its inherent powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Consti....
A consent decree obtained by fraud must be challenged in the court that issued it; separate suits for challenge are not maintainable.
Fraudulent consent decrees and unilateral cancellation deeds are void and non est in law; the court can quash such documents under Articles 226 and 227, asserting that fraud must not be tolerated in ....
Written Statement – Assertion made in plaint is not a proof and burden lay upon plaintiff to prove facts and averments made in its plaint even if there is no written statement filed by defendants to ....
An independent suit challenging a consent decree is barred under Order XXIII Rule 3A of the C.P.C. if the allegations of fraud are predominantly about breach/non-compliance of the consent terms/conse....
An appeal against a consent decree is barred under Section 96(3) of the CPC; aggrieved parties must contest the decree's validity in the same court that issued it.
(1) When fraud is alleged same is required to be pleaded and established by leading evidence. Mere allegation that there was a fraud is not sufficient.(2) Where any immovable property has been sold i....
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
