TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to same subject matter instituted before any Court, Authority and Tribunal. This disclosure is essential in para-2 of the petition and in addition, it can be disclosed in remaining portion of the body of petition - since learned counsel in the previous rounds of litigation and in this litigation is same, it was all the more necessary and obligatory on the part of the petitioner to disclose the entire facts and history of previous rounds of litigation with accuracy and precision. In view of this conduct of petitioner, a sizable amount of precious time of court is being wasted. We deem it proper to observe that suppression of facts cannot be termed as advocacy . If a litigant discloses all the facts correctly and then able to convince the court, it can be treated as skill of advocacy. The litigation is neither a game of chess nor a hide and seek game but a search for truth and parties must place their cards on the table - it is deemed proper to dismiss this petition with exemplary cost. Petition dismissed with cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only). - WRIT PETITION NO. 13900 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 24-6-2022 - SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 17 of the Securitization Act. He submits that the petitioner, a purchaser of the property, does not fall within the ambit of any person as per Section 17(1) of the Securitization Act. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on Standard Chartered Bank vs. Dharminder Bhohi (2013) 15 SCC 341. 7. In nutshell, Shri Sharma submits that in view of the previous order dated 28.4.2022 passed in W.P. No.7509/2013, this petition may be entertained because DRT is not legally equipped and competent to pass appropriate orders to take care of the relief claimed. 8. The relief prayed for was carefully perused by this Court. A conjoint reading of sub-section (2), (3) and (4) of Section 17 of the Securitization Act shows that DRT is indeed competent to decide the validity of action of secured creditor taken under Section 13(2) and (4) of the Securitization Act. 9. At this stage after consuming about 45 minutes, Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw this petition with the liberty to approach the DRT. We were inclined to grant that innocuous relief prayed by Shri Shekhar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. However, Shri Atul Choudhary, learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er point was pressed by the parties. 15. We have heard the parties in sufficient length. This is trite that a litigant must approach the Court with clean hands, clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. This is settled that if a litigant has approached the court with a pair of dirty hands, the petition may be dismissed on this count alone. In other words, the petitioner does not have any right whatsoever to get a hearing on merits from this Court because of such conduct of suppression of material fact. Apart from this, contempt proceedings can also be initiated for suppression of facts. In Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 1 SCC 560 , the Apex Court held as under in para 16:- 16. A writ remedy is an equitable one. A person approaching a superior court must come with a pair of clean hands. It not only should not suppress any material fact, but also should not take recourse to the legal proceedings over and over again which amounts to abuse of the process of law. In Advocate General, State of Bihar v. M.P. Khair Industries this Court was of the opinion that such a repeated filing of writ petitions amounts to criminal contempt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isstate the law if he can help it-the court is supposed to know the law. But it knows nothing about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts; and the penalty by which the court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it, the court will set aside any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement. (emphasis supplied) 36. A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. While exercising extraordinary power a writ court would certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the court. If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material fact or attempts to mislead the court, the court may dismiss the action on that ground alone and may refuse to enter into the merits of the case by stating, We will not listen to your application because of what you have done. The rule has been evolved in the larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it . 37. In Kensington Income Tax Commrs. Viscount Reading, C.J. observed: (KB pp. 495-96) Where an ex parte application ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the court, the court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the court does not reject the petition on that ground, the court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court. 17. It is held that suppression or concealment of material facts is not even an advocacy. After taking note of various Supreme Court judgments on the subject, the Apex Court opined as under in para 51:- 51. Yet in another case in Vijay Syal v. State of Punjab, this Court stated: (SCC p. 420, para 24) 24. In order to sustain and maintain the sanctity and solemnity of the proceedings in law courts it is necessary that parties should not make false or knowingly, inaccurate statements or misrepresentation and/or should not conceal material facts wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CC 557, the Apex Court held in para 48 as under :- 48. The present appellants had also not disclosed that land allotted to them falls in commercial area. When a person approaches a court of equity in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, he should approach the court not only with clean hands but also with clean mind, clean heart and clean objective. Equally, the judicial process should never become an instrument of oppression or abuse or a means in the process of the court to subvert justice. Who seeks equity must do equity. The legal maxim Jure naturae aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimento et injuria fieri locupletiorem , means that it is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by the loss or injury to another. (Vide Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, K.R. Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand and Noorduddin v. Dr. K.L. Anand at SCC p. 249, para 9.) 18. In paragraph 53 of this judgment, the Apex Court held that in this kind of cases, the proceedings for criminal contempt can be initiated. 19. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Andolan and another, (2011) 7 SCC 639, the Apex Court in para 164 held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to disclose and to suppress (keep back)/ conceal other facts. (iii) Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. (iv) If litigant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly or states them in a distorted manner and misleads the Court, the Court has inherent power to refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If Court does not reject the petition on that ground, the Court would be failing in its duty . (v) Such a litigant requires to be dealt with for Contempt of Court for abusing the process of the Court. (vi) There is a compelling need to take a serious view in such matters to ensure purity and grace in the administration of justice. (vii) The litigation in the Court of law is not a game of chess. The Court is bound to see the conduct of party who is invoking such jurisdiction. 17. A plain reading of principles culled out and reproduced hereinabove, makes it clear that the litigant has to approach the court by furnishing all essential information regardi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upfront and clean with all material facts and then, on the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel, leave it to the court to determine whether or not a particular fact is relevant for arriving at a decision. Unfortunately, the petitioners have not done this and must suffer the consequence thereof. [Emphasis Supplied] 22. The Delhi High Court in Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited vs. GTL Infrastructure Limited and Another 2020 SCC Online Del 2081 and this Court in Sushma Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh 2018 SCC Online MP 231 have taken the same view. This Court held that :- 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the subject matter of present petition is squarely same and connected with earlier round of litigation i.e. W.P. No.3039/2014. Thus, the petitioner should have disclosed this fact in para 2 of the petition. When petitioner s counsel was confronted with this fact, unfortunately, no regret is shown nor any prayer was made to amend this petition. This is trite law that the litigant should approach the Court with clean hands, clean mind and clean heart. In the present days of huge pendency, when 150-200 matters are listed every day, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed before an appropriate forum. Accordingly, finding existence of statutory remedy of appeal as indicated hereinabove, this petition stands dismissed. C.c. as per rules. [Emphasis Supplied] Thus, we are unable to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that suppression is a bonafide mistake on the part of the petitioner. 24. In view of this conduct of petitioner, a sizable amount of precious time of court is being wasted. We deem it proper to observe that suppression of facts cannot be termed as advocacy . If a litigant discloses all the facts correctly and then able to convince the court, it can be treated as skill of advocacy. The litigation is neither a game of chess nor a hide and seek game but a search for truth and parties must place their cards on the table [See: Vatal Nagaraj v. R. Dayanand Sagar, (1975) 4 SCC 127]. 25. In view of suppression of facts and conduct of petitioner, we deem it proper to dismiss this petition with exemplary cost. We quantify the cost as Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) . The said cost shall be deposited before the Secretary, State Legal Services Authority, Jabalpur within 30 days from today failing which the said a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
