Case Note & Summary
The case involves a review petition filed by Indian Oil Corporation (the original respondent) seeking to review an order passed in Writ Petition No. 802 of 2015. The review petitioner alleged that the original petitioner, Dattatray Eknath More, had played fraud on the court by not disclosing the filing of an earlier petition and the order dated 12th September 2005 passed therein. The review petitioner relied on the Supreme Court judgment in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jaganmath, which held that a judgment obtained by fraud is a nullity. The original petitioner's counsel argued that although the earlier petition and order were not mentioned, the mother of the petitioner had sent a letter dated 7th November 2005 to Indian Oil Corporation, following the order dated 12th September 2005, reminding the corporation of the pendency of the petitioner's claim for employment under the corporation's policy. The Court considered the submissions and found that the letter dated 7th November 2005 indicated that the claim was not abandoned and was kept alive. Therefore, the non-disclosure of the earlier petition did not amount to fraud. The Court held that the review petition was without merit and dismissed it. The rule was discharged, and no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review Petition - Fraud on Court - Non-disclosure of earlier petition - The review petitioner alleged that the original respondent suppressed the fact of an earlier petition and order dated 12.09.2005, amounting to fraud. The Court held that the mother's letter dated 07.11.2005, sent after the order, kept the claim alive and thus there was no fraud. The review petition was dismissed. (Paras 3-5)
B) Land Acquisition - Employment Policy - Claim for Employment - The original petitioner sought employment under the Indian Oil Corporation's policy. The Court found that the correspondence after the earlier order indicated the claim was not abandoned, and therefore no fraud was played. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the review petition alleging fraud on court due to non-disclosure of an earlier petition and order should be allowed.
Final Decision
Review Petition (ST) No. 3185 of 2020 is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Review petition
- fraud on court
- non-disclosure of earlier proceedings
- suppression of material facts
- S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu principle
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (08) 107
REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO. 3185 OF 2020 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 802 OF 2015
SUNIL B. SHUKRE, SMT. BHARATI DANGRE
Mr. Anil Kumar K.P. a/w. Ms. Priyanka Kumar for petitioner, Mr. V.S. Kapse a/w. Mr. Freddy Bhadha for respondent no. 1, Ms. M.P. Thakur- AGP for respondent nos. 2 and 3
Dattatray Eknath More, Special Land Acquisition Officer, State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Review petition against an order in a writ petition concerning land acquisition and claim for employment.
Remedy Sought
Review of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 802 of 2015 on the ground of fraud.
Filing Reason
Alleged suppression of earlier petition and order dated 12.09.2005 by the original petitioner.
Previous Decisions
Order dated 12th September 2005 in an earlier petition; order in Writ Petition No. 802 of 2015 which is sought to be reviewed.
Issues
Whether non-disclosure of an earlier petition and order amounts to fraud on court.
Whether the review petition should be allowed.
Submissions/Arguments
Review petitioner submitted that fraud was played upon the court by not disclosing the earlier petition and order, relying on S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu.
Original petitioner submitted that the mother's letter dated 07.11.2005 kept the claim alive, so there was no fraud.
Ratio Decidendi
Non-disclosure of an earlier petition does not amount to fraud if subsequent correspondence indicates the claim was kept alive and not abandoned.
Judgment Excerpts
It is submitted on behalf of the review petitioner that this is a case wherein fraud has been played upon the Court and therefore, the review petition deserves to be allowed.
Learned counsel for the original petitioner submits that even though there is no mention about the earlier petition and the order passed therein on 12th September 2005, the fact remains that mother of the petitioner had sent a letter dated 7th November 2005, following the order dated 12th September 2005, to Indian Oil Corporation reminding it of the pendency of petitioner’s claim for providing of employment as per the policy of the Indian Oil Corporation and therefore, it could not be said that this is a case where fraud has been played upon the Court.
Procedural History
The review petition was filed against an order in Writ Petition No. 802 of 2015. The matter was heard and disposed of by this judgment.
