“It is a settled proposition of law that a decree obtained by playing fraud on Court is a nullity and that such a decree could be challenged at any time in any proceedings. This proposition is certainly not in dispute.

Learned Counsel also placed reliance on Union of India v. Ramesh Gandhi, (2012) 1 SCC 476 which reads as under:-

“If a Judgment obtained by playing fraud on Court is a nullity and is to be treated as non est by every Court, superior or inferior, it would be strange logic to hear that an enquiry into the question whether a Judgment was secured by playing fraud on Court by not disclosing necessary facts relevant for adjudication of the controversy before Court is impermissible. It is clear that such an examination is permissible. Such a principle is required to be applied with greater emphasis in realm of public law jurisdiction as mischief resulting from such fraud has a larger dimension affecting larger public interest.”

We agree that when there is an allegation of fraud by non-disclosure of necessary and relevant facts or concealment of material facts, it must be inquired into. It is only after evidence is led coupled with intent to deceive that a conclusion of fraud could be arrived at. A mere concealment or non-disclosure without intent to deceive or a bald allegation of fraud without proof and intent to deceive would not render a decree obtained by a party as fraudulent. To conclude in a blanket manner that in every case where relevant facts are not disclosed, the decree obtained would be fraudulent, is stretching the principle to a vanishing point.

What is fraud has been adequately discussed in Meghmala, (2010) 8 SCC 383. Unfortunately, this decision does not refer to earlier decisions where also there is an equally elaborate discussion on fraud. These two decisions are Bhaurao, (2005) 7 SCC 605 and Harapriya Bisoi, (2009) 12 SCC 378. In view of elaborate discussion in these and several other cases which have been referred to in these decisions, it is clear that fraud has a definite meaning in law and it must be proved and not merely alleged and inferred.”

– Hon’ble Justice Madan B. Lokur, Harjas Rai v. Pushparani Jain, [Civil Appeal 11491 of 2016].

_____

While finest of legal minds and legal eagles are busy developing best of jurisprudence, there are certain sinister cabal of unscrupulous litigants and a coterie of their counselors who are always busy in taking undue advantage of systemic lacunae and in misusing process of law. No Court can allow itself to be used as an instrument of fraud.

– Hon’ble Justice Bela M. Trivedi, Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P., [Diary No. 18885 of 2024] decided on 20.09.2024.

_____

“In view of divergent views, matter be placed before Hon’ble CJI.”

17.04.2025

I am unable to persuade myself to let them go scot-free without any punishment. A degraded Bar will inevitably produce a degraded Bench.

– Hon’ble Justice Bela M. Trivedi, N. Eswaranathan v. State, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 55057 of 2024].

Both have an unblemished track record which persuades me to take a lenient view. They are warned of and directed to be careful in not repeating any misconduct in future. They are also directed to ensure, they shall appear before all cases where they have entered appearances.

– Hon’ble Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, N. Eswaranathan v. State, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 55057 of 2024].

_____

Lawyers before subscribing their autographs to a pleading making scurrilous and scandalous allegations against a Judge ought to think about serious repercussions of same.

– Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai, In Re: N. Peddi Raju, [Suo Moto Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2025] decided on 10.11.2025.