9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 875X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion was directed to be surrendered, is stated to have filed SA.SR.No.1326 of 2012 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, with delay. 2. According to the petitioner, Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited, Madurai / respondent No.2, took time to file counter. Thereafter, respondent No.2, has published a sale-cum-auction notice, dated 20.01.2016, proposing to conduct a Tender-cum-auction, on 02.03.2016. Coming to know of the sale notice, the borrower / petitioner has filed I.A.No.318 of 2016 in SA.SR.No.1326 of 2012, seeking for an amendment, by inserting the subsequent auction notice, dated 20.01.2016. I.A.No.319 of 2016, has also been filed seeking to stay all the proceedings pursuant to the sale notice, dated 20.01.2016, issued by the respondent Bank, for the proposed auction- cum-sale, scheduled on 02.03.2016. 3. The petitioner has further contended that though the learned counsel has approached the Presiding Officer as well as the Registry and mentioned the urgency ,his case has was not taken up and posted for hearing for the past four weeks,. The petitioner has further contended that the appeal has not been taken up for hearing. Contending inter alia that pending appeal, the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that dismissal of SASR No.1326 of 2012 was known to the petitioner, only when he filed an application for amendment and stay of the auction notice, dated 20.01.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the restoration petition. 8. Contention of learned counsel appearing for the Bank that SA.SR.No.1326 of 2012, has been dismissed on 04.01.2016 has not been disputed, on the contra, the petitioner is aware of the same. Thus the fact remains that SASR.No.1326 of 2012 itself has been dismissed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Madurai. Going through the averments made in the supporting affidavit and after hearing the learned counsel for the bank, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner has not disclosed full facts, on the contra, the dismissal of SASR.No.1326 of 2012 has been suppressed. Added further, he has also stated that SA.SR.No.1326 of 2012 is still pending on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Madurai and during pendency of the appeal, sale notice, dated 20.01.2016 has been issued. As regards suppression and equity, useful reference can be made to the following decisions:- (I) In Arunima Baruah v. Union of India reported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act performed, though the other side have affirmed it, because an injunction may be an equitable remedy. When one asks on what principle this is supposed to be based, one receives in answer the maxim that anyone coming to equity must come with clean hands. I think the expression clean hands is used more often in the textbooks than it is in the judgments, though it is occasionally used in the judgments, but I was very much surprised to hear that when a contract, obtained by the giving of a bribe, had been affirmed by the person who had a primary right to affirm it, not being an illegal contract, the courts of equity could be so scrupulous that they would refuse any relief not connected at all with the bribe. I was glad to find that it was not the case, because I think it is quite clear that the passage in Dering v. Earl of Winchelsea [(1787) 1 Cox Eq Cas 318: 2 Bos P 270], which has been referred to, shows that equity will not apply the principle about clean hands unless the depravity, the dirt in question on the hand, has an immediate and necessary relation to the equity sued for. In this case the bribe has no immediate relation to rectification, if rectification were asked, o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in a moral sense. Thus, fraud on the part of a minor deprives him of his right to equitable relief notwithstanding his disability. Where the transaction is itself unlawful it is not necessary to have recourse to this principle. In equity, just as at law, no suit lies in general in respect of an illegal transaction, but this is on the ground of its illegality, not by reason of the plaintiff s demerits. (ii) In Prestige Lights Ltd., v. State Bank of India reported in 2007 (8) SCC 449, at Paragraphs 33, 34 and 35, it has been held as follows: 33. It is thus clear that though the appellant- Company had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a Court of Law is also a Court of Equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the Writ Court may re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
