TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1434
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons as the Court may fix. 4. Mr. Pathak relied upon Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 which provides for even release of prohibited goods on such terms and conditions as proper officer would decide. Section 125 reads as under :- "125. Option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation. (1)Whenever confiscation of any goods is authorised by this Act, the officer adjudging it may, in the case of any goods, the importation or exportation whereof is prohibited under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, and shall, in the case of any other goods, give to the owner of the goods or, where such owner is not known, the person from whose possession or custody such goods have been seized, an option to pay in lieu of confiscation such fine as the said officer thinks fit: Provided that where the proceedings are deemed to be concluded under the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 28 or under clause (i) of sub-section (6) of that section in respect of the goods which are not prohibited or restricted, no such fine shall be imposed. Provided further that, without prejudice to the provisions of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 115, such fine shall not exceed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... explain from where the so called knowledge was generated. 8. Mr. Pathak states that petitioner shall give bank guarantee for 50% of the value of the goods. 9. Seizure memo, a copy whereof at Exhibit-C to the petition being Seizure Memo No. 07/2024-25 dated 7th May 2024 states that the declared value is Rs. 5,96,26,958/-. Mr. Pathak states 50% of that would be Rs. 2,98,13,479/-. We shall round if off to Rs. 3,00,00,000/-. Upon petitioner giving a bank guarantee of a nationalised bank for Rs. 3,00,00,000/-, respondent shall permit petitioner to provisionally clear the goods. 10. A bond for 100% of the value of the goods shall be given by the partnership firm and by each partner of the firm in their individual capacity. 11. Mr. Pathak states that there are only two partners of petitioner firm viz., Mr. Dinesh Babulal Sanghavi and Mr. Mahendra Kumar whose details Mr. Pathak provides as under:- i) Mr. Dinesh Babulal Sanghvi -Aadhar Card No. 3270 4485 5984 ii) Mr. Mahendra Kumar - Aadhar Card No. 8957 0419 7562 iii) M/s. Purvi Jewellers - Pan Card No.AAOFP9099C Mr. Pathak states that there are no other partners. He also states that the firm is registered and shows the caus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t about having addressed the said communication dated August 5, 1998. Petitioner No.2 is a partner of Petitioner No.1-Firm and he ought to have disclosed to the Court and been truthful to the Court and not suppressed that such a communication was so addressed and the adjustment was made at the request of Petitioner No.1-firm. That was a material fact that has been suppressed. The courts have consistently deprecated parties or litigants who are economical with truth and who resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. 8. If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, the Court must nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly. An activist judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits said V. R. Krishna Iyer, J. (as he then was) in T. Arivandandam V/s. T. V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467. 9. In Dalip Singh V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 2 SCC 114, the Court bemoaned that a new creed of litigants has cropped up who do not have any respect for truth and they shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. Such a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touche....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e number of such cases prior to that. This is illustrative of the malaise that is slowly but surely creeping in. This 'trend' is certainly an unhealthy one that should be strongly discouraged, well before the filing of false affidavits gets to be treated as a routine and normal affair." 12. Kuldip Singh, J. (as he then was) in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. V/s. Jagannath (Dead) (1994) 1 SCC 1, in paragraph 5 observed : "5. ................ 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." 13. In Oswal Fats and Oils Limited V/s. Additional Commissioner (Administrator) (2010) 4 SCC 728, the Apex Court followed the same principal that if a person is found guilty of concealment of material facts or making an attempt to pollute the pure stream of justice, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t jus nunquam cohabitant). This maxim has never lost its lustre over the centuries. Thus, any litigant who is guilty of inhibition before the Court should not bear the fruit and benefit of the court's orders. This Court has also held that fraud is an act of deliberation with a desire to secure something which is otherwise not due. Fraud is practiced with an intention to secure undue advantage. Thus, an act of fraud on courts must be viewed seriously. 43.1. Further, fraud can be established when a false representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii), recklessly, being careless about whether it be true or false. While suppression of a material document would amount to a fraud on the Court, suppression of material facts vital to the decision to be rendered by a court of law is equally serious. Thus, once it is held that there was a fraud in judicial proceedings all advantages gained as a result of it have to be withdrawn. In such an eventuality, doctrine of res judicata or doctrine of binding precedent would not be attracted since an order obtained by fraud is non est in the eye of law. 43.2. In K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....21 SCC OnLine SC 1194 ("K. Jayaram"), a bench of this Court headed by Sri Nazeer, J. noticed that the appellants therein had not come to the Court with clean hands. The appellants in the said case had not disclosed the filing of a suit and its dismissal and also the dismissal of the appeal against the judgment of the Civil Court. This Court stressed that the parties have to disclose the details of all legal proceedings and litigations either past or present concerning any part of the subject matter of dispute which is within their knowledge in order to check multiplicity of proceedings pertaining to the same subject-matter and more importantly to stop the menace of soliciting inconsistent orders through different judicial forums by suppressing material facts either by remaining silent or by making misleading statements in the pleadings in order to escape the liability of making a false statement. This Court observed that since the appellants therein had not disclosed the filing of the suit and its dismissal and also the dismissal of the appeal against the judgment of the civil court, the appellants had to be non-suited on the ground of suppression of material facts. They had not co....