2022 (12) TMI 44 - HC - Indian Laws

Suppression of facts from the Court - Seeking permission to withdraw the petition - it is alleged that the petition suffers from serious suppression of facts - scope of any person as per Section 17(1) of the Securitization Act - HELD THAT - 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. A plain reading of requirement of declaration as per High Court Rules leaves no room for any doubt that petitioner was required to disclose about previously instituted proceedings relating 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).

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the auction notice issued under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act.
2. Petitioner's entitlement to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17 of the Securitisation Act.
3. Alleged suppression of material facts by the petitioner.
4. Conduct of the petitioner in previous and current litigation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Auction Notice:
The petitioner challenged the auction notice dated 23.5.2022 issued under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act, arguing that it was issued to circumvent a previous Division Bench order dated 28.4.2022 in W.P. No.7509/2013. The petitioner claimed that the auction notice was not related to the previous litigation and thus should be considered separately.

2. Petitioner's Entitlement to Approach DRT:
The petitioner argued that they do not fall within the ambit of "any person" under Section 17(1) of the Securitisation Act, referencing the case Standard Chartered Bank vs. Dharminder Bhohi (2013) 15 SCC 341. The court, however, emphasized that a conjoint reading of sub-sections (2), (3), and (4) of Section 17 of the Securitisation Act shows that the DRT is competent to decide the validity of the secured creditor's actions under Section 13(2) and (4).

3. Alleged Suppression of Material Facts:
The court noted that the petitioner had not disclosed previous litigation, specifically W.P. No.18389/2012, in the current writ petition. The court cited multiple Supreme Court judgments, emphasizing that a litigant must approach the court with clean hands, disclosing all material facts. The court found that the petitioner had suppressed material facts and misled the court, which is a serious misconduct warranting dismissal of the petition with costs.

4. Conduct of the Petitioner in Previous and Current Litigation:
The court highlighted the petitioner's failure to disclose previous rounds of litigation and the incomplete declaration in para-2 of the petition. The court stressed that litigants must disclose all facts accurately and fully, as failure to do so undermines the court's ability to administer justice effectively. The petitioner's conduct, including the suppression of facts and misleading the court, was deemed unacceptable.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition with exemplary costs of Rs.50,000 due to the petitioner's suppression of material facts and conduct in the litigation. The court reserved the petitioner's liberty to approach the DRT against the impugned auction notice. The judgment reiterates the importance of litigants approaching the court with clean hands and full disclosure of all relevant facts.