2009 (12) TMI 847 - SC - Indian Laws

It is clear that in this case efforts to mislead the authorities and the courts have transmitted through three generations and the conduct of the appellant and his son to mislead the High Court and this Court cannot, but be treated as reprehensible. They belong to the category of persons who not only attempt, but succeed in polluting the course of justice. Therefore, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order under challenge or entertain the appellant s prayer for setting aside the orders passed by the Prescribed - Appeal is dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Misrepresentation and suppression of facts in court proceedings.
2. Consequences of non-disclosure and misleading the court.
3. Application of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 and Article 226 of the Constitution.
4. Procedural adherence under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Misrepresentation and Suppression of Facts in Court Proceedings:
The judgment highlights the decline in societal values post-independence, where litigants often resort to falsehood and suppression of facts to achieve their goals. The court emphasized that those who attempt to pollute the stream of justice or touch the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands are not entitled to any relief. This principle was reiterated through various cases, such as Hari Narain v. Badri Das, where the Supreme Court revoked the leave granted due to inaccurate and misleading statements. Similarly, in Welcome Hotel v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the court held that a party misleading the court is not entitled to be heard on merits.

2. Consequences of Non-disclosure and Misleading the Court:
The judgment underscores the importance of full and frank disclosure of facts by litigants. In cases like G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Governor of Karnataka and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, the court denied relief due to suppression of material facts. The court reiterated that the relief under Article 136 of the Constitution is discretionary and must be approached with clean hands. In Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India, it was held that suppression of material facts justifies the High Court in refusing to entertain petitions under Article 226.

3. Application of Discretionary Jurisdiction under Article 136 and Article 226 of the Constitution:
The judgment elaborates on the discretionary and equitable jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136 and the High Court under Article 226. In A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of A.P., the court emphasized that Article 136 does not confer a right of appeal but grants discretion to intervene where justice and equity require. Similarly, in Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank of India, the court held that the entire facts and circumstances must be considered to avoid miscarriage of justice. The principle that the petitioner must come with clean hands was reiterated in K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India.

4. Procedural Adherence under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960:
The case in question involved the tenure-holder's failure to file a statement under Section 9(2-A) of the Act. The Prescribed Authority issued a notice under Section 10(2), which was served, but no objections were filed by the tenure-holder, leading to an ex parte order declaring surplus land. The tenure-holder's subsequent application to set aside the ex parte order was rejected due to lack of valid grounds and supporting evidence. The appeal and restoration applications were also dismissed. The legal representatives of the tenure-holder made misleading statements in their writ petition, resulting in an interim stay order that delayed the distribution of surplus land.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the tenure-holder and his legal representatives did not approach the court with clean hands and made misleading statements. The court noted the reprehensible conduct of the appellants in misleading the authorities and courts through three generations. Although the court refrained from imposing exemplary costs, it highlighted the importance of honesty and full disclosure in judicial proceedings.

← Previous Next →