2007 (8) TMI 446 - SUPREME COURT

Extraordinary remedy under article 226 of the Constitution from the High Court denied - Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Several facts had been suppressed by the appellant-company. Collusive action has been taken with a view to deprive the respondent-bank from realizing legal and legitimate dues to which it was otherwise entitled. The Company had never disclosed that it had created third party’s interests in the property mortgaged with the Bank. It had also shifted machinery and materials without informing the respondent-bank prejudicially affecting the interest of the Bank. It has created tenancy or third parry’s right over the property mortgaged with the Bank. All these allegations are relevant when such petitioner comes before the Court and prays for discretionary and equitable relief. In our judgment, the submission of the respondent-bank is well-founded that appellant is not entitled to ask for an extraordinary remedy under article 226 of the Constitution from the High Court as also equitable remedy from this Court under article 136 of the Constitution. A party, whose hands are soiled, cannot hold the writ of the Court. Thus the High Court was not in error in refusing relief to the appellant-company.