2012 (3) TMI 592 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
Petition filed u/s Article 226 of the Constitution seeking relief to quash auction proceedings, prevent dispossession, and grant other suitable reliefs. Allegation of misleading by respondents. Declaration of no other proceedings on the same subject matter and no other available remedies made by the petitioner. Application u/s 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act produced by the Bank showing petitioner had already appealed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal before filing the writ petition.

Judgment Details:

Issue 1 - Relief sought u/s Article 226:
The petitioner sought relief u/s Article 226 to quash auction proceedings and prevent dispossession. Allegation of being misled by respondents. Declarations made by the petitioner regarding no other proceedings on the same subject matter and no other available remedies.

Issue 2 - Suppression of facts:
The Bank produced an application u/s 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act showing the petitioner had already appealed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal before filing the writ petition. The Court found that the petitioner had deliberately suppressed the fact of preferring an appeal and made incorrect declarations. The Court emphasized the importance of approaching with clean hands and clean mind when seeking equitable relief.

Relevant Legal Precedents:
Citing judgments from the Apex Court, the Court reiterated the principle that litigants must approach the court with clean hands, clean mind, and clean heart. Failure to disclose material facts or suppression of facts in court proceedings is frowned upon. Litigants resorting to falsehood and suppression of facts are not entitled to relief. The Court emphasized the duty of parties to bring all material facts before the court and not to mislead.

Conclusion:
The Court held that the petitioner's suppression of facts and speculative litigation did not warrant invoking equity and discretionary jurisdiction u/s Article 226. The petitioner's prayer to withdraw the petition was rejected, and the petition was dismissed with costs imposed. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, allowing the petitioner to continue prosecuting the appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.