Order/Judgment/Decree obtained by fraud is a nullity in the eyes of law liable
to be set aside by any Court
It is common knowledge that litigants often misrepresent before the Court in
order to obtain interim/final orders. The vital/primary information is concealed
and forged documents are filed to obtain favourable orders from the Courts. This
practice is all the more adopted while seeking interim injunction from the
Court, mostly ex-partie, as there is no rebuttal from the opposite party. The
Apex Court has consistently held that the orders obtained by fraud &
misrepresentation of facts are non-est/nullity in the eyes of law.
It is relevant to refer to the Apex Court case in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu
(Dead) by Lrs. V. Jagannath (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors.
, (1994) 1 SCC 1, wherein the
Court relying on the Doctrine of Clean Hands held that litigants whose cases are
based on falsehood have no right to approach the Court and their cases should be
summarily rejected on this ground alone.
The Court observed thus:
"Fraud-avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal" observed Chief
Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is the settled
proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the
court is a nullity and nonest in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree - by
the first court or by the highest court - has to be treated as a nullity by
every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court
even in collateral proceedings.
.....we do not agree with the High Court that "there is no legal duty cast upon
the plaintiff to come to court with a true case and prove it by true evidence".
The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent of
such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest
litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the
One who comes to the court, must come with clean-hands. We are
constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being
abused. Property-grabbers, tax- evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other
unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court - process a
convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation
to say that a person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach
the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation."
It would be trite to refer to the Apex Court judgment in K.D Sharma v. Steel
Authority of India (2008) 12 SCC 481, wherein following earlier precedents it
was categorically held that judgment/decree obtained by fraud is a nullity. The
Court held thus:
"15. It is well settled that "fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or
temporal" proclaimed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England before about three
centuries. Reference was made by the counsel to a leading decision of this Court
in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by Lrs. V. Jagannath (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors.,
(1994) 1 SCC 1 wherein quoting the above observations, this Court held that a
judgment/decree obtained fraud has to be treated as a nullity by every Court.
17. The Court defined fraud as an act of deliberate deception with the design of
securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. In fraud one gains at
the loss and cost of another. Even the most solemn proceedings stand vitiated if
they are actuated by fraud. Fraud is thus an extrinsic collateral act which
vitiates all judicial acts, whether in rem or in personam."
It is apropos to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in A.V. Papayya Sastry &
Ors. V. Govt. of A.P. & Ors., (2007) 4 SCC 221wherein considering English and
Indian cases the Court held thus:
Now, it is well settled principle of law that if any judgment or order is
obtained by fraud, it cannot be said to be a judgment or order in law. Before
three centuries, Chief Justice Edward Coke proclaimed; "Fraud avoids all
judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal.
It is thus settled proposition of law that a judgment, decree or order obtained
by playing fraud on the Court, Tribunal or Authority is a nullity and non est in
the eye of law. Such a judgment, decree or order by the first Court or by the
final Court has to be treated as nullity by every Court, superior or inferior.
It can be challenged in any Court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or
even in collateral proceedings. In the leading case of Lazarus Estates Ltd. v.
Beasley, (1956) 1 All ER 341: (1956) 1 QB 702 : (1956) 2 WLR 502, Lord Denning
No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand, if it
has been obtained by fraud.
In Duchess of Kingstone, Smith's Leading Cases, 13th Edn., p.644, explaining the
nature of fraud, de Grey, C.J. stated that though a judgment would be res
judicata and not impeachable from within, it might be impeachable from without.
In other words, though it is not permissible to show that the court was
'mistaken', it might be shown that it was 'misled'. There is an essential
distinction between mistake and trickery.
The clear implication of the
distinction is that an action to set aside a judgment cannot be brought on the
ground that it has been decided wrongly, namely, that on the merits, the
decision was one which should not have been rendered, but it can be set aside,
if the court was imposed upon or tricked into giving the judgment. It has been
said; Fraud and justice never dwell together (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant);
or fraud and deceit ought to benefit none (fraus et dolus nemini patrocinari
Fraud may be defined as an act of deliberate deception with the design of
securing some unfair or undeserved benefit by taking undue advantage of another.
In fraud one gains at the loss of another. Even most solemn proceedings stand
vitiated if they are actuated by fraud. Fraud is thus an extrinsic collateral
act which vitiates all judicial acts, whether in rem or in personam. The
principle of 'finality of litigation' cannot be stretched to the extent of an
absurdity that it can be utilized as an engine of oppression by dishonest and
It would be pertinent to refer to the Apex Court Judgment in Raju Ramsing Vasave
vs Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar & Ors (2008) 9 SCC 54 wherein the said dictum was
reiterated. The Court held thus:
25....... Fraud vitiates all solemn acts. When an order has been obtained by practising fraud on the court, it would be a nullity.
In Ganpatbhai Mahijibhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat and Ors
. (2008) 3 SCC 556,
this Court held:
"It is now a well settled principle that fraud vitiates all solemn acts. If an
order is obtained by reason of commission of fraud, even the principles of
natural justice are not required to be complied with for setting aside the
It was further observed:
In T. Vijendradas and Anr. v. M. Subramanian and Ors
., 2007 (12) SCALE 1,
this Court held:
21. ...When a fraud is practiced on a court, the same is rendered a nullity. In
a case of nullity, even the principles of natural justice are not required to be
complied with. [Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. v. Ajay Kumar Das and Ors.
(2002) 4 SCC 503 & A. Umarani v. Registrar, Cooperative societies and Ors.(2004)
7 SCC 112].
22. Once it is held that by reason of commission of a fraud, a decree is
rendered to be void rendering all subsequent proceedings taken pursuant thereto
also nullity, in our opinion, it would be wholly inequitable to confer a benefit
on a party, who is a beneficiary thereunder...."
It would be befitting to refer to the Apex Court judgment in Smriti Madan
Kansagra vs Perry Kansagra
decided on 7 October, 2021, wherein the Court held as
"26. The High Court, as a court of record, has exercised its jurisdiction to set
at naught the order of the Forest Tribunal thus procured by the appellant by
finding that the same is vitiated by fraud. There cannot be any doubt that the
Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution of
India has the power to undo a decision that has been obtained by playing a fraud
on the Court. The appellant has invoked our jurisdiction under Article 136 of
the Constitution of India.
When we find in agreement with the High Court that
the order secured by him is vitiated by fraud, it is obvious that this Court
should decline to come to his aid by refusing the exercise of its discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. We do not think
that it is necessary to refer to any authority in support of this position
except to notice the decision in Ashok Nagar Welfare Assn. v. R.K. Sharma (2002)
1 SCC 749 : 2001 Supp (5) SCR 662 ."
In the case of Meghmala & Ors vs G.Narasimha Reddy & Ors (2010) 8 SCC 383 the
Apex Court elaborated the concept of fraud and reiterated that any order
obtained by fraud is non-est in the eyes of law. The Court held thus:
20. It is settled proposition of law that where an applicant gets an
order/office by making misrepresentation or playing fraud upon the competent
Authority, such order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. "Fraud avoids all
judicial acts ecclesiastical or temporal." (Vide S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead)
by L.Rs. Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. & Ors. AIR 1994 SC 853). In Lazarus
Estate Ltd. Vs. Besalay 1956 All. E.R. 349), the Court observed 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."
21. In Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation Vs. M/s. GAR Re-Rolling Mills
. AIR 1994 SC 2151; and State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Prabhu (1994) 2 SCC
481. this Court observed that a writ Court, while exercising its equitable
jurisdiction, should not act as to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud as the
courts are obliged to do justice by promotion of good faith. "Equity is, also,
known to prevent the law from the crafty evasions and sub-letties invented to
22. In Smt. Shrisht Dhawan Vs. M/s. Shaw Brothers
. AIR 1992 SC 1555, it has been
held as under:-
Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilised
system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct.
23. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors
. AIR 2000 SC
1165, this Court observed that "Fraud and justice never dwell together" (fraus
et jus nunquam cohabitant) and it is a pristine maxim which has never lost its
temper over all these centuries.
24. The ratio laid down by this Court in various cases is that dishonesty should
not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit to the persons who played fraud
or made misrepresentation and in such circumstances the Court should not
perpetuate the fraud. (See District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social
Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram & Anr. Vs. M. Tripura Sundari
Devi (1990) 3 SCC 655; Union of India & Ors. Vs. M. Bhaskaran (1995) Suppl. 4
SCC 100; Vice Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Anr. Vs. Girdharilal
Yadav (2004) 6 SCC 325; State of Maharashtra v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar
(2007) 1 SCC 80; Himadri Chemicals Industries Ltd. Vs. Coal Tar Refining Company
AIR 2007 SC 2798; and Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2009) 8
25. Fraud is an intrinsic, collateral act, and fraud of an egregious nature
would vitiate the most solemn proceedings of courts of justice. Fraud is an act
of deliberate deception with a design to secure something, which is otherwise
not due. The expression "fraud" involves two elements, deceit and injury to the
It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. (Vide Dr. Vimla
Vs. Delhi Administration
AIR 1963 SC 1572; Indian Bank Vs. Satyam Fibres (India)
Pvt. Ltd. (1996)
5 SCC 550; State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. T. Suryachandra Rao AIR
2005 SC 3110; K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors
. (2008) 12 SCC
481; and Regional Manager, Central Bank of India Vs. Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir
(2008) 13 SCC 170).
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
- knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or
- 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.
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).
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
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."
A very important aspect of the matter is the true legal connotation of the word
"Fraud". The Apex Court in the case of Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam v. Raj Kumar
Rajinder Singh (Dead) through LRs
(2019) 14 SCC 449 has defined fraud thus:
14. Suppression of a material document would also amount to a fraud on the
court, (see Gowrishankar v. Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust
, (1996) 3 SCC
310 and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath
, (1994) 1 SCC 1).
is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other
person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the
conduct of the former either by words or letter. Although negligence is not
fraud it can be evidence of fraud; as observed in Ram Preeti Yadav, (2003) 8 SCC
It would be befitting to refer to the case of Smt.Shrisht Dhawan vs M/S. Shaw
(1992) 1 SCC 534 wherein the Apex Court holding that the 'Burden to
prove fraud or collusion is on the person alleging it' elaborately dealt with
what is legally meant by the term 'Fraud'. The Court observed thus:
20. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any
civilised system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct.
Michael Levi likens a fraudster to Milton's sorcerer, Comus, who exulted in his
ability to, 'wing me into the easy-hearted man and trap him into snares'.
It has been defined as an act of trickery or deceit. In Webster fraud inequity
has been defined as an act or omission to act or concealment by which one person
obtains an advantage against conscience over another or which equity or public
forbids as being prejudicial to another.
In Black's Legal Dictionary, fraud is defined as an intentional perversion of
truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part some
valuable thing belonging to him or surrender a legal right; a false
representation of a matter of fact whether by words or by conduct, by false or
misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been
disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall
act upon it to his legal injury. In Oxford, it has been defined as criminal
deception, use of false representation to gain unjust advantage; dishonest
artifice or trick.
According to Halsbury's Laws of England, a representation is deemed to have been
false, and therefore a misrepresentation, if it was at the material date false
in substance and in fact. Section 17 of the Contract Act defines fraud as act
committed by a party to a contract with intent to deceive another. From
dictionary meaning or even otherwise fraud arises out of deliberate active role
of representator about a fact which he knows to be untrue yet he succeeds in
misleading the represented by making him believe it to be true.
The representation to become fraudulent must be of fact with knowledge that it
was false. In a leading English Derry v. Peek
 14 App. Cas. 337
case what constitutes fraud was described thus, fraud is proved when it is shown
that a false representation has been made:
- knowingly, or
- without belief in its truth, or
- recklessly, careless whether it be true or false.
The Court further held that deliberately and knowingly disclosure of incorrect
facts tantamount to fraud. The Court held thus:
21..........The colour of fraud in public law or administrative law, as it is
developing, is assuming different shade. It arises from a deception committed by
disclosure of incorrect facts knowingly and deliberately to invoke exercise of
power and procure an order from an authority or tribunal. It must result in
exercise of jurisdiction which otherwise would not have been exercised. That is
misrepresentation must be in relation to the conditions provided in a section on
existence or non-existence of which power can be exercised. But non-disclosure
of a fact not required by a statute to be disclosed may not amount to fraud.
Thus, it is no longer Res Integra that any order/judgment/decree obtained by
fraud is non-est/nullity in the eyes of law and the same can be nullified/set
aside by any Court- inferior, superior or the same Court which had passed the
Written By: Inder Chand Jain
Ph no: 8279945021, Email: [email protected]
Please Drop Your Comments