2014 (12) TMI 1292 - HC - Indian Laws

Suppression of material fact - plot in question is transferred in the name of respondent No.2 on the record of the GIDC Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation Held that - There is a very thin line between suppression of material fact, and non-disclosure of a material fact. On conjoint reading of the pleadings of the petitioner in the civil suit in question and the present petition, this Court finds that, the impugned order passed by the respondent - Corporation is the consequence of the sale deed dated 04.03.2013 and both are inter woven aspects. For this reason the challenge to the sale deed is a material fact for the present petition. Once it is found that, challenge to the sale deed dated 04.03.2013 is a material fact for this petition, non-disclosure thereof would not have any less effect then suppression thereof. The consequence thereof would be, dismissal of this petition. Additionally this Court finds that, had it been pointed out in the petition itself, then what is noted in 6.1 above would not have been a factor against the petitioner, but then, on the contents of the said civil suit, the petitioner could not have been granted any relief by this Court on merits, since during the pendency of the challenge to the said sale deed, the consequential order passed by the respondent Corporation cannot be interfered with. Viewing from one more angle this Court finds that, had the civil suit been not filed at all, then neither 6.1 or 6.2 would have been a factor against the petitioner, but then also on the face of the said sale deed, the petitioner could not have been granted any relief, without any successful challenge to the said sale deed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order transferring plot ownership by Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation based on alleged illegality and inconsistency with records. Preliminary objection raised regarding suppression of material fact by petitioner. Dispute over repayment of loan leading to transfer of plot ownership. Discrepancies in documents signed by petitioner. Failure to obtain interim relief in civil suit affecting current petition.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to Order by Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation
The petitioner challenged the order transferring ownership of a plot to respondent No.2 by Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation. The petitioner argued that the order was illegal and inconsistent with the Corporation's records. The petitioner contended that the transaction leading to the order was illegal and contradictory, citing details of original allottees and documents. The petitioner also referenced a Supreme Court decision to counter the respondent's preliminary objection of material fact suppression. The petitioner sought interference with the impugned order.

Issue 2: Preliminary Objection of Material Fact Suppression
The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding material fact suppression by the petitioner. It was highlighted that the petitioner had filed a civil suit challenging a sale deed related to the plot but did not mention it in the current petition. The respondent argued that the petitioner was not entitled to relief, as the impugned order was a consequence of the sale deed. The respondent contended that the petitioner disowned signed documents related to loan repayment and plot transfer, urging for the dismissal of the petition.

Issue 3: Dispute Over Loan Repayment and Plot Transfer
The respondent Corporation explained the transfer chronology in detail, emphasizing an inter-se dispute among the Company's Directors regarding loan repayment and plot transfer. The respondent argued that the petitioner created obstacles despite the loan repayment arrangement. The respondent asserted that the petitioner's actions disentitled him from relief, pointing out discrepancies in documents signed by the petitioner.

Issue 4: Discrepancies in Signed Documents
During the hearing, discrepancies were noted in documents signed by the petitioner, which were relevant to the loan repayment and plot transfer arrangement. The petitioner disputed the authenticity of these documents, which were crucial in determining the petitioner's eligibility for relief. The Court considered these discrepancies as a factor against the petitioner, affecting the foundation of the petition.

Issue 5: Failure to Obtain Interim Relief in Civil Suit
The petitioner's failure to secure interim relief in the civil suit raised concerns about the timing and nature of the current petition. The Court viewed the current petition as a reiteration of the civil suit application, indicating a lack of merit in granting relief. The Court declined to entertain the petition based on the timing and circumstances of its filing.

Conclusion:
After considering all aspects and arguments presented, the Court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought. The petition was dismissed, with costs not awarded. The Court found that the petitioner's actions, including disputes over signed documents and failure to obtain interim relief, did not support granting the requested relief.

This detailed analysis covers the various issues raised in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the arguments, objections, and conclusions presented in the case.