[01.01]Union Of India & Ors vs Ramesh Gandhi on 14 November …indiankanoon.org/doc/450155/Nov 14, 2011 – Union Of India & Ors vs Ramesh Gandhi on 14 November, 2011 … 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE … This appeal arises out of a judgment of the High Court of Calcutta dated 23rd …[PDF]Union of India v. Ramesh Gandhi, (2012) 1 SCC 476
www.supremecourtcases.com/index2.php?option=com…do…Union of India v. Ramesh Gandhi, (2012) 1 SCC 476. Courts, Tribunals andJudiciary. Judicial Process. Judgment obtained by playing fraud on superior court
[o1 A] Meghmala & Ors. vs G.Narasimha Reddy & Ors. on 16 August, 2010
 T.S.THAKUR P & H HC 3 Judges Bench: Budh Ram And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others . 22nd May, 2009
 Inherent Powers of Courts under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code
[04 ] March 21, 2006. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & OTHERS
 Judicial Precedents . . Relevance
 “Duties and Conduct of Advocates” : Supreme Court Explains
 Meghmala & Ors. vs G.Narasimha Reddy & Ors. on 16 August, 2010
26. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res judicata. Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false. Suppression of a material document would also amount to a fraud on the court. (Vide S.P. Changalvaraya Naidu (supra); Gowrishankar & Anr. Vs. Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 2202; Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi & Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 319; Roshan Deen Vs. Preeti Lal AIR 2002 SC 33; Ram Preeti Yadav Vs. U.P. Board of High School & Intermediate Education AIR 2003 SC 4628; and Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. AIR 2004 SC 2836). 1
27. In kinch Vs. Walcott (1929) AC 482, it has been held that "….mere constructive fraud is not, at all events after long delay, sufficient but such a judgment will not be set aside upon mere proof that the judgment was obtained y perjury.
Thus, detection/discovery of constructive fraud at a much belated stage may not be sufficient to set aside the judgment procured by perjury.
28. From the above, it is evident that even in judicial proceedings, once a fraud is proved, all advantages gained by playing fraud can be taken away. In such an eventuality the questions of non-executing of the statutory remedies or statutory bars like doctrine of res judicata are not attracted. Suppression of any material fact/document amounts to a fraud on the court. Every court has an inherent power to recall its own order obtained by fraud as the order so obtained is non est.
……….Complete Supreme Court Judgment…Meghmala & Ors. vs G.Narasimha Reddy & Ors. on 16 August, 2010 ….Author: . B Chauhan …Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan .http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1329151/….
An employee whose monthly emoluments are, for instance Rs.20000/- receives in a given month, a sum of Rs.30000/- instead of Rs.20000/-. Such a payment may be purely accidental and erroneous arising out of an un-intended mistake. The question is whether the employee has any obligation to verify the reason or the genesis of the windfall that he has received and to refund the same, if he is not lawfully entitled to the same. Our answer to this is in the affirmative. Such a case may not fall in category (i) as the employee has not committed any mistake but it is not a case that would fall in category (ii) either as the benefit is unrelated to any erroneous interpretation or application of rule. It is a case where by reason of sheer neglect of a functionary of the State Government, a payment that is undeserved and wholly uncalled for is made to the employee. Such a case cannot be equated with those falling in category (ii). Such a case may be dealt with independently and the employee concerned called upon to refund to the Government the undeserved payment that he has received. We say so because in our opinion, once the undeserved payment came to his notice, every employee is under an obligation to verify the reason for the same and act in a manner that is fair and equitable. Appropriation of a payment which the employee had no reason to expect or accept would in such a case be dishonest. And one who is dishonest cannot take shelter Civil Writ Petition No.2799 of 2008 15 behind equity. We cannot for obvious reasons exhaustively enumerate situations where such payments are received and can be lawfully recovered. All that we propose to point out is that while generality of the cases would fall in category (i) and (ii), some freak cases like the one in category (iii) that we have been able to conceive, may need to be dealt with independently depending upon whether the employee can be attributed the knowledge that the payment was undeserved and whether the duty to verify the factual position and refund the amount when the same came to his notice could be read into his duty as an employee of the State or its instrumentalities. The reference is answered accordingly. These petitions shall now be placed before the appropriate Bench for disposal in the light of what we have said above.